u c berkeley 2009-2019 capital financial plan

U C B E R K E L E Y 2 0 0 9 - 2 0 1 9 C A P I T A L F I N A N C I A L P L A N N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 9

U C B E R K E L E Y 2 0 0 9 - 2 0 1 9 C A P I T A L F I N A N C I A L P L A N


C O N T E N T S

Preface

Executive Overview 1

Goals & Priorities 3

Life Safety 4

Campus Growth & New Initiatives 6

Intellectual Community 8

Campus Environment 9

Capital Renewal 10

Operation & Maintenance 11

Sustainable Campus 12

Capital Approval Process 15

Capital Resources 17

State Funds 19

Gift Funds 21

Campus Funds 22

Capital Program 2009-2019 25

Project Details 35


P R E F A C E

In March 2008, The Regents authorized the ‘pilot phase’ of a major reconfiguration of the capital projects approval process: the pilot phase would entail an initial test of the redesign in order to examine its logistics and impacts, prior to full implementation.

In general, the new process would delegate much more authority to the campus for project approval, and would limit project-specific review by The Regents to very large and complex projects. Each campus would prepare a set of ‘framework’ plans that outline its capital investment strategy and physical design approach. Once those plans are approved by The Regents, then as long as a project meets certain thresholds, and conforms to the framework plans, it could be approved by the Chancellor, subject to a 15 day review by OP. One of these thresholds is dollar value: the currently proposed figure is $60 million or less.

The framework plans for Berkeley include 3 documents:

• The 2020 Long Range Development Plan provides a land use policy framework, within which projects can be prioritized and planned.

• The Physical Design Framework describes the current state of the campus physical environment alongside our design objectives, and prescribes guidelines and review protocols to ensure projects in the capital plan meet the design objectives.

• The 2009-2019 Capital Plan outlines both how the capital investment program would meet the campus’ academic and strategic objectives, and how the campus intends to fund the program. The Plan describes present conditions, outlines the campus’ objectives and priorities for the capital program, and details the campus’ financial strategy to meet those objectives.

Like the 2020 LRDP, the 2009-2019 Capital Plan excludes University Village Albany and Richmond Field Station, as well as remote field stations and other properties lying entirely outside the City of Berkeley.


1

E X E C U T I V E O V E R V I E W

As the original campus of the University of California, Berkeley today remains a leader in education, research, and public service. Over the years, our performance has not only equaled but often outpaced the nation’s elite private universities, while we have also ensured a UC Berkeley education remains within reach of every deserving student. Over the past decade, this mandate has led to an increase of 14% in fall enrollment to keep pace with demographic trends.

But enrollment is only one of many drivers of investment at UC Berkeley. New academic initiatives and continued growth in research also create demand for more space on and around campus. While some of this demand can be met through renovation of existing buildings, new buildings are also required, particularly for programs that demand high performance infrastructure and other advanced features renovated space can not provide. We must strive to ensure the course of future research is driven by its value to the university and society, not by the physical constraints of the campus.

Research is also fundamental to our mission of education as a research university: critical inquiry, analysis, and discovery are integral to the coursework. Our students expect to play an active role in research, under the guidance of faculty who are themselves engaged in creating, not merely imparting, new knowledge. It is a goal of the Berkeley Strategic Academic Plan to integrate research-based learning into undergraduate as well as graduate education. To do so, we must expand the scope of our research programs, and must provide suitable space to house them.

But, as the oldest campus of the university, many of Berkeley’s older buildings are unable to meet modern standards for life safety, power systems, climate and vibration controls, and safety and environmental protocols. Moreover, the entire campus has been transformed by the revolution in information technology: the infrastructure to support high performance networks has become a necessity in every discipline.

The 2009-2019 Capital Plan would achieve these objectives in support of the Berkeley Strategic Academic Plan and 2020 Long Range Development Plan:

Life Safety. The 2009-2019 Capital Plan would replace or renovate over 1,300,000 gsf of space with seismic and life safety deficiencies, and would raise the percentage of space completed or underway from 66% to 81%.

Campus Growth & New Initiatives. The 2009-2019 Capital Plan would increase program space at Berkeley by over 800,000 new gsf, to accommodate program and enrollment growth as well as growth in extramural research.

Intellectual Community. The 2009-2019 Capital Plan includes a major new multi-disciplinary research complex devoted to instruction, research, and practice in the health sciences; the redesign and renovation of Moffitt Library and Hearst Gymnasium as active, welcoming centers of student life; and nearly 900 new student housing beds and up to 150 new units of faculty housing within walking distance of campus.

Renewal & Maintenance. The 2009-2019 Capital Plan would combine state and campus funds into an ongoing, designated fund for capital renewal. The Plan also includes the comprehensive renewal or replacement of over 1,200,000 gsf of program space and nearly 700 student bed spaces.

Campus Environment. The 2009-2019 Capital Plan proposes a special gift fund designated for the campus landscape to preserve, restore, and enhance the landscape as a place of both contemplation and interaction.

Sustainable Campus. The 2009-2019 Capital Plan includes the ongoing implementation of the campus Strategic Energy Plan as well as the campus objective to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2014.

Tables A1 and A2 summarize the capital investment program, with projects organized by type of project and type of use, respectively. A detailed year-by-year breakdown of the capital program is presented in the section ‘Capital Program 2009-2019’.


2

Table A1. Projects by Type ($000) Proj CostConst Begins CCCI 5565

Seismic ReplacementCampbell Hall Replacement 2010-2011 87,400 New Berkeley Art Museum 2010-2011 191,000 2223 Fulton Seismic Demolition 2013-2014 3,000 Lower Sproul Project TBD TBD

Seismic RenovationKing Union Seismic Retrofit 2009-2010 7,900 Eshleman Hall Partial Retrofit 2009-2010 1,200 2111 Bancroft Partial Retrofit 2009-2010 2,200 Memorial Stadium Seismic Renovation 2010-2011 321,000 Greek Theater Partial Retrofit 2010-2011 4,000 Tolman Hall Seismic Renovation 2012-2013 133,900 Old Art Museum Seismic Renovation 2015-2016 83,600 Lewis Hall Seismic Renovation 2015-2016 38,500 Mulford Hall Seismic Renovation 2016-2017 52,700 Dwinelle Annex Seismic Renovation 2016-2017 4,700 Hearst Gym Seismic Renov/Expansion 2017-2018 98,200 Lab Surge Facility 2015-2016 TBD

Other RenovationMoffitt Library Renovation 2011-2012 55,000 Bowles Res Hall Renovation 2012-2013 41,700 Stern Res Hall Renovation 2014-2015 37,100 Kerr Campus Renovation # 3 2015-2016 29,000

Other New FacilitiesWest Energy Research Facility 2009-2010 143,800 East Energy Research Facility 2010-2011 54,400 Gateway Building (Capital Lease) 2010-2011 * 60,500 Anna Head West Student Housing 2010-2011 69,900 Community Health Campus # 1 2011-2012 100,800 Chang-Lin Tien Center #2 2011-2012 50,000 Smyth Faculty Apartments 2011-2012 57,700 Community Health Campus # 2 88,200 Ellsworth Student Housing 2016-2017 88,000 Downtown Parking Facility TBD TBD

Infrastructure & In-YearCapital Renewal 106,500 Strategic Energy Projects 24,900 Intracampus Communication System 7,400 Other Campus Projects < $5M 147,000 Campus Landscape Fund 25,000

List excludes projects expected to start construction prior to 2009-2010* Capital lease includes payments within timeframe of 2009-2019 Capital Plan

2015-2016

2,216,200

Table A2. Projects by Use ($000) Proj CostConst Begins CCCI 5565

Instruction & ResearchWest Energy Research Facility 2009-2010 143,800 East Energy Research Facility 2010-2011 54,400 Campbell Hall Seismic Replacement 2010-2011 87,400 Community Health Campus # 1 2011-2012 100,800 Chang-Lin Tien Center #2 2011-2012 50,000 Tolman Hall Seismic Renovation 2012-2013 133,900 2223 Fulton Demolition 2013-2014 3,000 Community Health Campus # 2 2015-2016 88,200 Lewis Hall Seismic Renovation 2015-2016 38,500 Mulford Hall Seismic Renovation 2016-2017 52,700 Dwinelle Annex Seismic Renovation 2016-2017 4,700 Hearst Gym Seismic Renov/Expansion 2017-2018 98,200 Gateway Building (Capital Lease) 2010-2011 * 60,500 Lab Surge Facility 2015-2016 TBD

I & R SupportNew Berkeley Art Museum 2010-2011 191,000 Moffitt Library Renovation 2011-2012 55,000 Old Art Museum Seismic Renovation 2015-2016 83,600

Student LifeKing Union Seismic Retrofit 2009-2010 7,900 Greek Theater Partial Retrofit 2010-2011 4,000 2111 Bancroft Partial Retrofit 2009-2010 2,200 Eshleman Hall Partial Retrofit 2009-2010 1,200 Lower Sproul Project TBD TBD

HousingAnna Head West Student Housing 2010-2011 69,900 Smyth Faculty Apartments 2011-2012 57,700 Bowles Res Hall Renovation 2012-2013 41,700 Stern Res Hall Renovation 2014-2015 37,100 Kerr Res Campus Renovation # 3 2015-2016 29,000 Ellsworth Student Housing 2016-2017 88,000

AthleticsMemorial Stadium Seismic Renovation 2010-2011 321,000

ParkingDowntown Parking Facility TBD TBD

Infrastructure & In-YearCapital Renewal 106,500 Strategic Energy Projects 24,900 Intracampus Communication System 7,400 Other Campu sProjects < $5M 147,000 Campus Landscape Fund 25,000

2,216,200


3

G O A L S & P R I O R I T I E S

Capital investment at Berkeley is guided by the Strategic Academic Plan and the 2020 Long Range Development Plan, and is driven by several factors:

• Life Safety. While improvements to over 4 million gsf of Berkeley space are complete or underway, over 2 million gsf with seismic deficiencies remain to be corrected. Seismic improvements - along with related life safety, access, and other code upgrades - continue to be a primary driver of the Berkeley capital program. Our share of state capital funds is largely committed to seismic improvements.

• Campus Growth. Over the past decade, student enrollment at Berkeley has grown from 31,000 in Fall 1998 to 35,400 in Fall 2008, an increase of 14%. Berkeley also continues to experience growth in sponsored research: over the past decade, extramural research funding has grown, in real inflation-adjusted terms, by 24%.

• New Initiatives. Berkeley must accommodate not only the increase in student enrollment, but also transformative trends in both instruction and research. Many of the complex problems we explore require a combination of focused, individual work and work in interactive, multidisciplinary teams.

New academic initiatives, and continued growth in research, also create demand for more space. While some of this demand can be met through renovation of existing buildings, new buildings are also required, particularly for programs that demand high performance infrastructure and other advanced features renovated buildings can not provide.

• Intellectual Community. Berkeley is more than the sum of its programs. A great research university also requires a vital intellectual community, one that provides exposure to a wide range of cultures and perspectives, and generates the encounters and interactions that lead to discovery. For such a community to thrive requires places conducive to conversation, socialization, and recreation. It also requires good, reasonably priced housing close to campus, to enable students and faculty to participate actively in campus life.

• Capital Renewal. Many of our instructors and researchers struggle with spaces and systems compromised not only by time, but also by decades of inadequate reinvestment. The renewal of our buildings is crucial to our ability to recruit and retain exceptional individuals, and to pursue new topics of research and new models of instruction.

The need is just as acute for the campus infrastructure. The campus needs to complete upgrades to its information network, rehabilitate and expand its aging utility systems, and improve campus access and circulation, including ensuring universal access to all facilities.

• Operation & Maintenance. The decline in the condition of our buildings and infrastructure is due not only to inadequate reinvest-ment, but also to increasingly constrained budgets for OMP. In the future, state OMP funding for new space is expected to be prioritized for core I&R space. Capital budgets for other types of new projects should include provision for the cost of operation, maintenance, and renewal over the useful life of the project.

• Campus Environment. Capital investment must strive to improve our campus environment, not only to preserve and enhance its magnificent composition of landscape and historic buildings, but also to make the campus a safe place to work and study at any hour.

• Sustainable Campus. As one of the world’s great research universities, Berkeley also has a special obligation to serve as a model of how strategic investment can minimize resource consumption and advance the state of the art in responsible, sustainable design.

The following sections describe how the projects in the 2009-2019 Capital Plan support the specific goals of the Strategic Academic Plan and the 2020 Long Range Development Plan.


4

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

Berkeley Los Angeles

Davis Irvine Santa Barbara

Riverside San Diego

San Francisco

Santa Cruz

GSF To Be Done

GSF Completed + Vacant + Underway

LIFE SAFETY

Berkeley is not the only campus with a seismic hazard, but the magnitude of the problem is greater at Berkeley for two reasons. First, the Hayward Fault runs along the eastern edge of the core campus. Buildings anywhere on campus must be designed to near-fault conditions, which adds considerably to their cost.

Second, we are the oldest campus in the system, and most of the space on campus was built before 1973. This is a significant date because the 1973 code made major changes in reinforced concrete design to correct the problems revealed in failures such as Olive View Hospital in the San Fernando earthquake.

The Regents established our seismic safety policy in 1975. A subsequent study of state-supported university buildings revealed a substantial percentage of buildings with seismic deficiencies was located on the Berkeley campus. As a result of this study, Berkeley completed 29 seismic projects that, together, represented 16% of our current space inventory. All these projects were complete or underway by 1997, and this alone represented a major investment for the campus and the university.

But meanwhile, we learned more about how buildings respond to earthquakes, as a result of the quakes of the early to mid 1990s. In 1997, Berkeley began the SAFER program, to reassess our buildings in light of this new knowledge. Once this survey was complete, over 100 of our buildings, or 27% of the Berkeley space inventory, had been rated ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’.

Progress to Date. As shown in figure 1, the total area of buildings at Berkeley found to have seismic deficiencies, both pre-and post-SAFER, is 6.5 million gsf. This represents 27% of the university-wide total.1 But despite the magnitude of the task, Berkeley has made significant progress. Seismic improvements to 61% of this space have been completed, and another 5% of this space has been vacated or is now in design.

1 UCOP, Seismic Status Summary (With $), June 2008

Figure 1. Seismic Program by Campus (2008)

Figure 1 also shows our progress to date in comparison to other campuses. Berkeley and Los Angeles are comparable in terms of both the scope of the problem and the amount of space completed to date. Both have completed over twice the amount of space of any other campus of the university, but today over half of the uncompleted balance is on the Berkeley campus.

Although state funds have been the primary funding source for seismic improvements, the Berkeley campus has also utilized a variety of other funding sources. Seismic retrofits of four large academic buildings were financed with a combination of FEMA, campus, and state funds. Improvements to several housing and parking structures have been financed with auxiliary revenues. Improvements to the student union and two other buildings housing student activities are proposed in this Plan to be financed with a student life safety fee.


5

Goals: Life Safety

• Eliminate ‘poor’ and ‘very poor’ seismic ratings in campus space by renovating or replacing the space or converting it to storage.2

• Include life safety, access, and other code related upgrades and renewal of building infrastructure in each seismic renovation.

The program of capital investment in the 2009-2019 Capital Plan would increase the percentage of ‘poor and ‘very poor’ space corrected or under way from 66% to 81% by 2018-2019. The project budgets for each seismic renovation include code upgrades and building systems renewal.

State funds would finance the replacement of Campbell Hall and the seismic renovations of Tolman, Lewis, and Mulford Halls and Dwinelle Annex. State funds would also combine with gifts to finance the seismic and programmatic renovation and expansion of Hearst Gymnasium. The pace of the program is constrained by future levels of state capital funds, which at Berkeley are assumed to remain at the equivalent of the 2010-2015 allocation of roughly $49 million per year at CCCI 5565.

Auxiliary revenues would finance the seismic renovation of California Memorial Stadium. The seismic renovation is the second project in a program of capital investment in Stadium athletics facilities. The first project, now under construction adjacent to the Stadium, is a Student Athlete High Performance Center serving 13 men’s and women’s sports programs: the Center replaces the training spaces now housed within the Stadium, and itself represents a significant reduction in life safety hazard.

Gifts would fund the construction of a new downtown Berkeley Art Museum to replace the existing poor-rated facility, followed by the seismic and programmatic renovation of the Old Art Museum to house other programs.

The completion of two new projects, phase 2 of the Chang-Lin Tien Center and phase 1 of the Community Health Campus (both described in the next section), would enable the poor-rated 2223 Fulton to be vacated and demolished. A special life safety student fee, already in place, would fund the retrofits of King Union and the partial retrofits of Eshleman Hall and 2111 Bancroft.

2 UC Berkeley, 2020 Long Range Development Plan, Jan 2005, p 17

Surge Space. Seismic projects can occasionally be completed while the tenants remain in the building; the retrofit of Barrows Hall is the most recent example. However, this is the exception, not the rule, for two reasons. First, many structural improvements designed to raise the rating of the building from ‘poor’ to ‘good’ require extensive and intrusive work to the building interior, creating very difficult if not impossible conditions for instruction and research.

Second, given the age of the Berkeley campus, most buildings requiring structural improvements also have life safety, access, and other code deficiencies, as well as building systems that have aged beyond their useful lives. A seismic renovation offers the campus a one-time window to upgrade or replace those systems while the building is vacant.

The plan for completing the balance of Berkeley seismic renovations thus depends not only on funding, but also on the supply of ‘surge’ space, the space used to house tenants of buildings while seismic work is underway.

The seismic program in the 2009-2019 Capital Plan includes investment in the new Gateway Building on a university owned site adjacent to campus. This project would be used first primarily as surge space for seismic projects and then, once it is no longer required for surge, could be used to rehouse campus units now in other leased space.

The financial strategy for the Gateway Building and other seismic surge expenditures is described in ‘Capital Resources: State Funds’.


6

CAMPUS GROWTH & NEW INITIATIVES

Student enrollment at Berkeley has grown from 31,000 in Fall 1998 3 to 35,400 in Fall 2008,4 an increase of 14%. Over the timeframe of the Plan, the campus intends to gradually decrease this number, with the objective of eliminating all unfunded students.

Berkeley also continues to experience growth in sponsored research, and this trend shows no sign of abating in the long term. Over the past decade, extramural research funding has grown, in real inflation-adjusted terms, by 24%.

Research is also fundamental to our mission of education. At Berkeley, critical inquiry, analysis, and discovery are integral to the coursework. Our students expect to play an active role in research, under the guidance of faculty who are themselves engaged in creating, not merely imparting, new knowledge. It is a goal of the Strategic Academic Plan to integrate research-based learning into undergraduate as well as graduate education.5 To do so, we must both continue to expand the scope of our research programs, and provide suitable space to house them on or adjacent to campus.

Many of the complex problems explored at UC Berkeley today require a combination of focused, individual work and work in interactive teams drawn from several disciplines. One of the most significant principles of the Strategic Academic Plan was to recognize this transformation in our plans for enrollment growth:

The ‘tidal wave 2’ mandate to grow our enrollment by 4000 students by the end of this decade presents Berkeley with another major challenge, but … it also offers great potential. The state has committed to fund the incremental cost of our new students: the campus should utilize these resources not only to expand the capacity of high-demand programs, but also to extend existing programs in promising new directions, and create new programs to pursue new areas of inquiry. 6

3 http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/uwnews/stat/enrollment/enr1998/bk98.html 4 http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/uwnews/stat/statsum/fall2008/statsumm2008.pdf 5 UC Berkeley, Strategic Academic Plan, Jun 2002, p 13-14. 6 UC Berkeley, Strategic Academic Plan, Jun 2002, p 10

In the ensuing years, many new interdisciplinary programs have been established as outcomes of the Strategic Academic Plan, as well as the Institutes for Science and Innovation and other initiatives, including:

Institutes for Science & Innovation • Institute for Quantitative Biosciences • Center for Information Technology Research

Other Partnership Research Initiatives • Energy Biosciences Institute • Solar Energy Research Center • Center for Stem Cell Research • Blum Center for Developing Economies

Strategic Academic Plan Initiatives • Center for New Media • Center for Computational Biology • Center for Global Metropolitan Studies • Nanoscience & Nanoengineering Institute • Institute of the Environment

Berkeley Diversity Research Initiatives • Diversity & Democracy • Diversity & Health Disparity • Educational Policy


7

Goals: Campus Growth & New Initiatives

• Accommodate growth by more intensive land use on and adjacent to the core campus. 7

• Prioritize core campus space for programs that directly engage students in instruction and research. 8

A fundamental principle of the Strategic Academic Plan and the 2020 LRDP is the principle of contiguity. One of the best ways to foster a strong and vital intellectual community is to accommodate future growth through more intensive land use on and adjacent to the core campus, rather than in more dispersed locations. The 2009-2019 Capital Plan reflects this principle: every nonhousing project is located on or adjacent to the 180 acre core campus, and every housing project is within comfortable walking distance.

• Make spaces conducive to creative interaction a priority in new capital investment. 9

Recent Projects. This goal is already evident in several new projects recently completed or now underway. In the new Stanley Hall, home of the CISI-supported Institute for Quantitative Biosciences, students and faculty utilize the powerful quantitative tools of physics, chemistry, mathematics, and informatics to explore complex problems in bioscience and biomedicine.

The new Sutardja Dai Hall, home of the CISI-supported Center for Information Technology Research, brings engineers together with students and faculty from health, law, public policy, and new media, to utilize information technology to address societal problems ranging from health care to energy to infrastructure, and includes a state-of the art nanofabrication facility.

The Center for Biomedical & Health Sciences, now under construction, will house the CIRM-supported Center for Stem Cell Research, and will provide flexible, open lab spaces to house students and faculty in biology, neuroscience, and public health exploring the molecular mechanisms of human disease. 7 UC Berkeley, 2020 Long Range Development Plan, Jan 2005, p 19 8 UC Berkeley, Strategic Academic Plan, Jun 2002, p 21+ 2020 LRDP, p 19 9 UC Berkeley, Strategic Academic Plan, Jun 2002, p 23

Also now under construction is the adaptive renovation and expansion of the historic Naval Architecture building to house the Blum Center for Developing Economies, including its interdisciplinary undergraduate program in Global Poverty and Practice.

Planned Projects. The new academic buildings planned for the future also support this goal. The Community Health Campus will bring several health sciences disciplines together to catalyze new initiatives at the intersection of research, practice, and policy. The first phase will house a consolidation and expansion of the School of Public Health.

Phase 2 of the Chang-Lin Tien Center will unite the various units focused on Asian studies into a single integrated center of language and culture, to complement phase 1, the recently completed Starr East Asian Library.

• Explore developing one or more new research centers adjacent to the core campus. 10

The Helios Energy Research Facilities, devoted to interdisciplinary research on basic scientific problems in the utilization of solar energy and the production of carbon-neutral biofuels, was approved for a hillside site east of the core campus in May 2008. However, in 2009 the project was re-envisioned as two separate facilities to optimize synergies with other UC Berkeley and Berkeley Lab programs. The West facility, focused on biofuels and related bioscience research, will be constructed on a downtown site adjacent to the cluster of bioscience and natural resource programs in the northwest campus. The East facility, focused on nanoscale photovoltaic systems, will be constructed within the Berkeley Lab site.

The Community Health Campus described above will ultimately add 300,000 net new gsf to the campus. The complex will be built in two stages on a downtown site adjacent to the core campus.

The construction of a new home for the Berkeley Art Museum, on a downtown site at the west entrance to the core campus, will in turn permit the adaptive re-use of the existing Old Art Museum to house other academic programs.

10 UC Berkeley, Strategic Academic Plan, Jun 2002, p 20


8

INTELLECTUAL COMMUNITY

The breadth and quality of our academic programs are the equal of any university in the world, but Berkeley is more than the sum of its programs. A great research university also requires a vital intellectual community, one that provides exposure to a wide range of cultures and perspectives, and generates the encounters and interactions that lead to discovery.

Although physical contiguity is essential, it is not sufficient in itself to create a vital intellectual community. While the compact size of the campus encourages an interactive culture, its physical design does not: until recently, the campus had few places conducive to informal conversation.

Moreover, the constrained and expensive housing market near campus has driven both students and faculty to live farther and farther away, making it more and more difficult to engage fully in campus life. The price of Berkeley housing also continues to be a formidable obstacle in our efforts to recruit and retain exceptional graduate students and faculty.

Goals: Intellectual Community

• Enhance the role of the library as an intellectual commons.11

The renovation of Moffitt Library proposed in the 2009-2019 Capital Plan will transform it into a place far more conducive to group interaction as well as quiet individual study. The renovation will upgrade the obsolete building infrastructure to support 21st century methods for research and analysis, provide flexible state-of-the-art spaces for team-based projects and presentations, and showcase student work.

• Create places of interaction at key nodes of campus activity.12

The 2009-2019 Capital Plan includes the adaptive renovation of Hearst Gymnasium. The project will entail not only life safety upgrades and basic infrastructure renewal, but will also transform this 80 year old facility into a true center of student life, including both active and quiet recreation as well as social spaces, exhibits, performance, and student services.

11 UC Berkeley, Strategic Academic Plan, Jun 2002, p 23 12 UC Berkeley, Strategic Academic Plan, Jun 2002, p 23 + 2020 LRDP, p 32

Plans are also under consideration for the renovation of Lower Sproul Plaza, a complex of four buildings located around a large plaza at the primary student entrance to campus. The complex presently includes a mix of student services, convenience retail, and student organizations, but over the years it has become a bleak and underutilized place as the needs and patterns of student life have changed. As currently envisioned, the program would entail replacement of one building, Eshleman Hall, and renovations of the other buildings and the plaza itself. However, the project scope and financial strategy are not yet definitive enough for inclusion in this edition of the Plan.

• Increase single undergraduate beds to equal 100% of entering freshmen plus 50% of sophomores and entering transfers by 2020.13

• Increase single graduate student beds to equal 50% of entering graduate students by 2020. 14

Within the past decade, the supply of university-owned and operated student housing has increased by 20%, from 6311 bed spaces in 1997-1998 to 7542 in 2007-2008: 6499 single student beds plus 1043 student family units.15 The two new projects in the 2009-2019 Capital Plan, the Anna Head and Ellsworth Student Housing projects, will add another 890 single student beds.

One objective of the 2020 LRDP is to increase beds for single students to equal 100% of entering freshmen plus 50% of entering transfers and 50% of entering graduates. This number is projected at up to 7400 by 2020. These two projects will increase the number of beds for single students from 6499 to 7389, thus effectively meeting the 2020 LRDP objectives for entering students.

The 2020 LRDP also has the objective of providing additional beds for single students to equal 50% of sophomores. The campus will continue to expand the student housing inventory to meet this objective as resources permit.

13 UC Berkeley, 2020 Long Range Development Plan, Jan 2005, p 25 14 UC Berkeley, 2020 Long Range Development Plan, Jan 2005, p 25 15 Figures do not include another 585 bed spaces at International House, which is

owned by the university but operated by an independent organization


9

• Provide up to 3 years of university housing to new untenured ladder faculty who desire it. 16

The 2009-2019 Capital Plan would create 154 new units at the Smyth Fernwald site. Although the units are envisioned to house a mix of faculty, visiting scholars, postdocs, and graduate students, the recruitment and retention of faculty is a primary objective of the project, and faculty would have first priority. Depending on faculty demand, the project could meet the 2020 LRDP objective of 100 net new faculty units.17

• Continue renewal of existing student housing.

New student housing is only part of the picture. The Berkeley campus has continued to reinvest in its existing housing stock to ensure it provides the same quality of experience as the new housing. The original hi-rise residence halls constructed in 1960 were extensively renovated in the 1990s.

A 3-phase renewal of the historic Clark Kerr Campus was initiated in 2007. The phase 1 renovation of 3 buildings with 330 student beds was completed in summer 2009. The phase 2 renovation of 4 buildings with another 313 beds is now underway, to be completed in summer 2010. The 2009-2019 Capital Plan proposes to begin construction of the third and final phase, comprised of 3 buildings with 196 beds, in 2015-2016.

The Plan also includes the renovations of Bowles and Stern Residence Halls, with a combined 493 student beds, which are proposed to begin construction in 2012-2013 and 2014-2015 respectively.

16 UC Berkeley, Strategic Academic Plan, Jun 2002, p 26 + 2020 LRDP, p 27 17 UC Berkeley, 2020 Long Range Development Plan, Jan 2005, p 27

CAMPUS ENVIRONMENT

Capital investment must strive to enhance the physical campus environment, not only to preserve and enhance its magnificent composition of landscape and historic buildings, but also to make the campus a safe and inviting place to work and study at any hour.

The companion Physical Design Framework for the Berkeley campus describes the framework for land use and design, based on the principles articulated in the 2020 LRDP. However, there are several ways in which the capital investment strategy can further campus goals.

Goals: Campus Environment

• Implement an ongoing program of investment to restore and renew the campus landscape. 18

• Implement a program of strategic investment in new and enhanced campus open spaces.19

The campus Landscape Master Plan and the 2020 LRDP identify 29 priority investments in the campus landscape: 25 place-specific initiatives plus the four urban edges of the campus.20 These initiatives should serve as the framework for a special, ongoing gift fund focused on the campus landscape. So as not to compete with the current campuswide campaign, this special fund is proposed to begin in 2014-2015, at the midpoint of the 2009-2019 Capital Plan, with a goal of raising $5 million per year in 2009 dollars.

18 UC Berkeley, 2020 Long Range Development Plan, Jan 2005, p 31 19 UC Berkeley, 2020 Long Range Development Plan, Jan 2005, p 31 20 UC Berkeley, 2020 Long Range Development Plan, Jan 2005, p 32


10

CAPITAL RENEWAL

Berkeley is the oldest campus of the university. Many of our instructors and researchers struggle with spaces and systems compromised not only by age, but also by decades of inadequate capital reinvestment. The renewal of our space inventory is crucial to our ability to recruit and retain exceptional individuals, and to pursue new topics of research and new models of instruction.

The need is just as acute for the campus infrastructure. The campus needs to complete upgrades to its information network, rehabilitate and expand its aging utility systems, and improve campus access and circulation, including ensuring universal access to all facilities.

Goals: Capital Renewal

• Include code related upgrades and renewal of building infrastructure in each seismic renovation.

The estimated project budgets for each seismic renovation in the 2009-2019 Capital Plan include both code upgrades and building systems renewal.

• Complete the intracampus information system, and integrate intrabuilding information system upgrades into new capital investment.21

Many campus buildings are connected to the campus information network through ad hoc pathways such as old utility conduits. Many of these conduits are at capacity, and many others are damaged or hazardous: these conditions limit or preclude further upgrades in capability.

The construction of new interbuilding 'backbone' to replace these ad hoc pathways, and provide capacity for future growth, began in 1985. To date, 5 of the 8 elements have been completed, and work is underway on element 6. However, elements 7 and 8 and some key linkages required to interconnect the finished elements remain to be done. Completion of these elements is necessary for all campus programs to have access to the level of performance modern education and research demand.

21 UC Berkeley, Strategic Academic Plan, Jun 2002, p 22

• Combine campus and state funds to establish a regular annual investment in capital renewal.

The 2009-2019 Capital Plan has assumed a portion of future state capital funding to each campus would be earmarked for capital renewal: we have assumed an average of roughly $6 million per year at CCCI 5565. The 2009-2019 Capital Plan also assumes the recent campus practice of designating $5 million per year in campus funds to capital renewal would continue.

This is only a fraction of the true need. However, it is also important to remember each of the campus buildings proposed in the 2009-2019 Capital Plan to be renovated or replaced would include comprehensive building system renewal.


11

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE

The history of plant operation and maintenance (OMP) over the past 3 decades has been one of chronic underfunding, for several reasons. First, the level of OMP funding was informed by a study of workload standards conducted over 25 years ago. But over time, the facilities required to support advanced university research have become increasingly complex and technology-intensive, and those workload standards have become increasingly obsolete. A study of the standards conducted by the Berkeley campus found the cost of OMP for labs and other ‘complex’ types of space was roughly 50% greater than for ‘basic’ space.

Second, the vast majority of university space is over 30 years old. At Berkeley, the average age per gsf of university-owned program space – excluding housing and parking – was over 43 years in fall 2007. As shown in figure 2, this average age exceeds the useful lives of many building systems. As the systems in these older buildings reach the end of their useful lives – and are not replaced due to the shortage of capital renewal funds – they become increasingly costly to operate and maintain, and more prone to failure.

Third, as a result of the ongoing structural problems underlying the state budget, the state has not provided OMP funding for much of the new space the university has constructed over the last several years. The cumulative impact of not funding this new space has exacerbated the impact of the long term underfunding of OMP.22

OP has already begun to prioritize requests for OMP funding based on the use of the space, with I&R programs having first priority.23 Other types of new space – such as research units, research support functions, and administrative units – although eligible for state OMP funds, have a lower priority. Spaces housing auxiliary or fee supported units are not eligible for state OMP funds, nor is leased space.

22 University of California, 2009-2010 Budget for Current Operations, p 111 23 The university distinguishes ‘standard’ I&R functions – program codes 1.1 and 1.2

– from other ‘nonstandard’ I&R functions – codes 1.3 (health sciences) and 1.4 (misc other including physical and military education).

Goal: Operation & Maintenance

• Ensure each project budget supports adequate operation, maintenance, and renewal over the useful life of the project.

The Capital Approval Process described in the next chapter of the Plan describes a refined campus process for review and approval of capital investments. At each stage of this process, the analysis of the financial strategy must include not only the initial cost of the project, but also the cost to operate, maintain, and renew the project over its useful life. The financial strategy must identify the funding sources for these ongoing costs as well as for the initial cost.

Figure 2. Life Cycles of Building Systems

0 10 20 30 40 50

Exterior Enclosure

Vertical Conveyance

HVAC Equipment

HVAC Distribution

Electrical Equipment

Plumbing Fixtures

Fire Protection

Built-in Equipment

Interior Surfaces

Site Preparation

Foundations

Building Structure

Plumbing Rough-In

Electrical Rough-In

Life Cycle in Years


12

SUSTAINABLE CAMPUS

The Policy on Sustainable Practices adopted by The Regents in March 2007 required the university to develop a Strategic Energy Plan to reduce energy use in existing buildings.24 The initial goal for the projects was to reduce systemwide, growth-adjusted energy consumption by at least 10% from the base year 2000. The Policy also directed each campus to pursue a goal to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to year 2000 levels by 2014 and to 1990 levels by 2020, in conformance with the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB32).

In 2007, the Berkeley campus set a more ambitious objective: to reduce our emissions to 1990 levels by 2014, six years earlier than required by the Policy. The Berkeley campus intends to set additional interim targets to progressively lower emissions until climate neutrality is achieved. The capital investment program is critical to achieving this objective because GHG inventories reveal that nearly 80% of emissions are associated with campus buildings, with only 20% associated with transportation.

The GHG target is only one example of the ambitious, proactive path the Berkeley campus has taken toward a campus that is a model of responsible, sustainable operation. Our principles, goals, and strategies are summarized in the UC Berkeley 2009 Campus Sustainability Plan. 25 The companion UC Berkeley 2009 Campus Sustainability Report 26 details our progress toward those goals in terms of performance metrics.

The Campus Sustainability Plan covers a wide range of topics, including both capital and operating considerations:

• Energy & Climate ▪ Water • Buildings ▪ Waste • Purchasing ▪ Transportation • Food & Dining ▪ Land Use

This section, however, is focused on those topics of direct relevance to capital investment.

24 The most recently approved version of the Policy is at http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/coordrev/policy/sustainable_practices2009.pdf 25 http://sustainability.berkeley.edu/OS/plan.htm 26 http://sustainability.berkeley.edu/OS/reports.htm

Goals: Sustainable Campus

• Incorporate sustainable design goals and principles into capital investment decisions. 27

• Design future projects to minimize energy and water consumption and wastewater production. 28

• Base capital investment decisions on life cycle cost, including the cost of known future expenditures. 29

The Berkeley campus now has one LEED Silver and five LEED equivalent buildings, but an additional 18 buildings have registered for either LEED–New Construction or LEED–Existing Buildings Operations & Maintenance. LEED 2.1 Silver is the target for all new campus projects, and the campus is committed to strive to meet a LEED Gold rating wherever feasible within program and budget constraints.

New laboratory buildings will be designed to the same LEED standard or LABS21 environmental performance criteria. Major renovation projects will at least comply with standards equivalent to LEED Interiors or New Construction certified ratings, and register with the Savings by Design program. The campus also plans to submit at least one building for LEED Existing buildings certification, and to investigate Volume Certification for LEED Existing Buildings.

• Energy & climate: by 2014, reduce GHG emission to 1990 levels, and achieve climate neutrality as soon as possible. 30

The initial 2007 study identified 14 types of GHG reduction projects, including capital investments and behavioral education.31 Measures to achieve the campus objective also include the energy efficiency projects committed to in the campus Strategic Energy Plan, which implements a five-year program of energy improvements averaging $5 million per year.

27 UC Berkeley, 2020 Long Range Development Plan, Jan 2005, p 33 28 UC Berkeley, 2020 Long Range Development Plan, Jan 2005, p 34 29 UC Berkeley, 2020 Long Range Development Plan, Jan 2005, p 33 30 UC Berkeley, 2009 Campus Sustainability Plan, p 6 31 UC Berkeley Climate Action Partnership, Feasibility Study 2006-2007 Final Report, p, 31


13

The Strategic Energy Plan projects, along with the original GHG projects, are estimated to achieve about half of the GHG reductions required to meet the campus 2014 target. A full summary of the campus program, including new potential projects and financial strategies to meet the 2014 target, is presented in the UC Berkeley 2009 Climate Action Plan. 32

Although the emission of GHG rose slightly by 2.2% from 2006 to 2008 due to growth in campus building space and changes in the source mix by the electric utility, the 2008 levels were 19.7% below 2000 levels.

Electricity consumption per gsf in 2008 was 2.9% below consumption in 2006, and the percentage of purchased electricity provided by our utility from renewable sources increased from 12% to 15% over this period. Natural gas consumption per gsf in 2008 was 24% below consumption in 2006, while steam consumption per gsf increased slightly, by 2.8%.33

To address this goal, the 2009-2019 Capital Plan includes a program of 200 energy efficiency projects under our Strategic Energy Plan, at a total cost of $25 million, including $9 million in incentives from PG&E. The projects are expected to yield cost savings of at least $3 million per year.

• Water: by 2011 or earlier, set a water consumption reduction target and implement feasible water reduction, reuse and recycling projects. 34

Because 65% of water consumption is associated with the operation of campus buildings, capital investment has a major role in achieving reduction goals. However, even in the absence of a defined target, campus water consumption in 2008 at Berkeley was 8% lower than in 2006, and consumption per gsf was 11% lower. Wastewater generation was 9.5% lower in 2008 than in 2006, and wastewater per gsf was 12.4% lower.

32 http://sustainability.berkeley.edu/calcap/cap2009.html 33 UC Berkeley, 2009 Campus Sustainability Report, p 10 – cited consumption figures

based on consumption per university-owned gross square feet. 34 UC Berkeley, 2009 Campus Sustainability Plan, p 6

• Waste: achieve a 75% diversion rate by June 2012 and zero waste by 2020. 35

The Berkeley campus has already committed to ambitious solid waste reduction goals in response to OP policy. While we have met the target of 50% diversion by June 2008, additional effort and new initiatives are required to achieve future targets. Diverted waste includes diverted construction waste as well as recycled and composted waste.

• Land Use: plan every new project to serve as a model of resource conservation and environmental stewardship.

This goal in the Sustainability Plan draws upon the various strategies prescribed in the Strawberry Creek Management Plan 36 and in the 2020 LRDP and its EIR, including:

• Implement an ongoing program of investment to restore and renew the campus park landscape; implement a program of strategic investment in new and enhanced campus open park spaces.

• Continue to manage runoff into storm drain systems such that the aggregate effect of projects implementing the 2020 LRDP is no net increase in runoff over existing conditions.

• Continue to revise and implement the Strawberry Creek Management Plan to include recommendations for habitat restoration and enhancement along specific segments of the creek.

• Continue implementing an urban runoff management program as published in the Strawberry Creek Management Plan.

• Manage the natural preserves based on ecological principles, including replacing invasive exotic plants with native plants suited to this biotic zone, replacing unhealthy plants and plants at the ends of their natural lives, and preserving and enhancing the habitat value of the zone.

The implementation of these and other land use and design strategies are outlined in more detail in the UC Berkeley Physical Design Framework.

35 UC Berkeley, 2009 Campus Sustainability Plan, p 7 36 http://strawberrycreek.berkeley.edu/creekmgmt/scmgmtplan.html


14


15

C A P I T A L A P P R O V A L P R O C E S S

Timed to coincide with the formulation of the 2009-2019 Capital Plan, UC Berkeley has also reassessed the campus process for review and approval of capital investments, in order to:

• Maintain the alignment of project scope and budget from concept through delivery.

• Implement a consistent and transparent process to prioritize and schedule capital investments.

Although the basic framework of the approval process described in the 2020 LRDP would remain, the revised process would incorporate these refinements:

Project Ownership. An important lesson gleaned from past experience is that each project needs to have a single, designated project ‘Owner’. In the revised process, the Owner would be responsible for presenting the investment case for the project, in relation to program and campus goals; formulating the financial strategy, and taking a lead role in fundraising; serving on the program committee and serving as primary liaison with Capital Projects on scope decisions; and adjusting the project scope as necessary to align with the budget.

Prioritization. The revised process would establish a clear, two-stage procedure for the campus leadership to prioritize potential capital investments. A full prioritization would occur every three years, although interim reviews and adjustments could also occur as warranted.

In the first stage, the Capital Projects Committee (CPC) would evaluate each candidate investment based on predetermined, weighted criteria, which may include:

• Importance to campus mission and academic goals • Significance of benefits to sponsoring and related programs • Potential for external funds, both initial and ongoing • Benefits to campus and community • Funding strategy for operation, maintenance, and renewal over time


16

In the second stage, the CPC evaluations would serve as the basis for review by the Chancellor and Provost, who would then rank the candidate projects in groups of 2 or 3 based on priority.

Revised Approval Sequence. The revised process would reformulate the initial two phases - Concept Review and Feasibility Analysis - in the 2020 LRDP to include the following tasks:

1. Validation 1.1. Project Owner confirms program objectives as represented in

prioritization process. 1.2. Project Owner presents preliminary financial strategy, including an

assessment of fundraising potential in consultation with VC University Relations.

1.3. Provost (for academic projects) or VC Administration (for non-academic projects) confirms the project aligns with campus priorities based on the established list.

1.4. If so, Project Owner may request $50-$100k in campus funds for Options Analysis.

2. Options Analysis

2.1. CPC staff identify alternate investment solutions to meet project objectives, including concepts and conceptual budgets.

2.2. CPC staff review each option with Project Owner in relation to Owner’s objectives and campus goals and policies.

2.3. CPC staff and Project Owner review financial plan with VC University Relations and VC Administration prior to presentation to CPC.

2.4. Project Owner (with support from CPC staff) presents analysis of options to CPC.

2.5. CPC, in consultation with Owner, then selects Proposed Option.

3. Approval of Proposed Option 3.1. Executive Campus Planning Committee (ECPC) solicits and considers

input from campus community on Proposed Option. 3.2. ECPC recommends action to Chancellor, who decides whether to

approve project. 3.3. If approved, project is incorporated into 2009-20192009-2019

Capital Plan, and campus is reimbursed for Options Analysis.

4. Detailed Feasibility Analysis 4.1. Further development of program, concept plan, and budget. 4.2. Further analysis of technical and environmental issues. 4.3. Formal financial strategy prepared and approved by VC Administration

and VC University Relations. 4.4. CPC staff prepares Project Definition document that defines scope,

site, schedule, budget, financial strategy. 4.5. Project Definition may be approved by Provost or VC Administration if

consistent with the Proposed Option, but any significant variances must be approved by CPC.

4.6. Project may proceed to Program Development and Schematic Design as soon as funding is in place.

The subsequent phases of the capital approval process, from Program Development through Bid & Construction, would then take place as described in the 2020 LRDP.

Life Cycle Cost. Throughout the review and approval process, the financial strategy must include not only the initial cost of the project, but also the cost to operate, maintain, and renew the project over its useful life, at an adequate level of expenditures. The financial strategy must identify the funding sources for these ongoing costs, as well as the initial project cost.


17

C A P I T A L R E S O U R C E S

The Berkeley capital program draws upon 3 primary sources of funds:

• State funds • Gift and grant funds • Campus funds

Campus funds may be used for capital investment either as equity expenditures or to finance longterm debt. Campus debt breaks down into several subcategories, depending on the source of the revenues used to service the debt:

• Debt serviced with general operating revenues • Debt serviced with student fees • Debt serviced with auxiliary revenues


18

Table B. State General Campus Capital Funds 2010-2019 vs Estimated Allocation ($000)

Note: financial strategy for surge space requires State approval. Key: F = federal funds; G = gift funds; X = campus funds; no mark = state funds

Project 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019

State General Campus ProjectsCampbell Hall Replacement 65,200

Dem 63,700 gsf 11,000 FNew 81,600 gsf 2,800 G

2,000 XTolman Hall Renovation 13,200 120,700

Exst 247,000 gsfLewis Hall Renovation 1,900 1,900 34,700

Exst 68,146 gsfMulford Hall Renovation 1,900 3,300 47,500

Exst 93,500 gsfDwinelle Annex Renovation 400 4,300

Exst 8,400 gsfHearst Gym Adaptive Renov/Exp 49,100

Exst 124,400 gsf 4,900 G 4,900 G 39,300 GGateway Building (Rent on portion of capital lease used for seismic surge) 2,900 5,800 5,800 5,800 4,900 4,900 4,900

New 192,500 gsfLab Surge Facility TBD

TBDCapital Renewal 7,200 7,400 5,500 6,400 - 6,000 6,000 9,000 9,000

5,000 X 5,000 X 5,000 X 5,000 X 5,000 X 5,000 X 5,000 X 5,000 X 5,000 XIntracampus Com System 3,300 4,100

State General Campus Funds 72,400 20,600 129,100 14,100 9,600 50,200 62,700 66,300 18,000

Est State General Campus Allocation 2010-2019 442,600 State General Campus Funds Required 2010-2019 443,000

(CCCI 5565 ) (CCCI 5565 ) (CCCI 5565 )(CCCI 5565 ) (CCCI 5565 ) (CCCI 5565 ) (CCCI 5565 ) (CCCI 5565 ) (CCCI 5565 )


19

STATE FUNDS

State capital funds may be generated either through general obligation bonds, which require voter approval, or lease revenue bonds, which do not. For the 2009-2019 editions of the campus 2009-2019 Capital Plans, OP has assumed the state would provide the university with approximately $450 million per year over the next ten years for general campus programs and $100 million per year for health sciences initiatives – although it should be recognized this assumption was established during a period of unprecedented economic volatility and uncertainty, and may change in future editions of the Plans.

History

State capital funding for the University has been supported in recent years largely through general obligation bond measures. The most recent bond, approved by the voters in November 2006, provided the University with $345 million per year for the 2006-07 and 2007-08 budget years, plus another $200 million for telemedicine and medical education expansion.

In recent years, UC Berkeley has also received substantial funding from state lease revenue bonds directed to specific projects, including the Helios Energy Research Facilities ($70.0 million) and, through the California Institutes for Science and Innovation (CISI), to Stanley Hall ($34.9 million) and Sutardja Dai Hall ($87.3 million). This method of capital project financing involves the university leasing the project site to the state, then acting as the agent of the state to design and construct the facility, and then leasing the completed facility back from the state. The state sells bonds to finance the costs of constructing the facility and transfers the facility to the university upon retirement of the bonds.

The next general obligation bond measure would ordinarily have been placed on the Nov 2008 ballot, but the state chose not to do so. The next general obligation bond is not expected to be presented to the voters until Nov 2010. In response, the Governor agreed to include six high-priority university projects in his proposed 2008-2009 budget, to be financed with lease revenue bonds. One of those six projects is the Center for Biomedical & Health Sciences: the bond funds comprise $52.7 million, or roughly 20% of the project budget.

The 2009-2010 budget proposed by the Regents included funding for the construction phase of the Campbell Hall replacement at Berkeley, also to be financed with lease revenue bonds, but it was deleted in the special session budget adopted by the legislature, and remains unfunded. It is proposed in the Plan for construction in 2010-2011.

General Campus Funds

The Berkeley campus share of projected state capital funds is based on the current OP allocation model, which is being re-evaluated and may change over time. For this Plan the model, as approved by the President, and extrapolated to cover the 9 year period 2010-2019, yields an allocation to Berkeley of $442.6 million: $389.7 million for general campus projects plus $52.9 million for capital renewal, or an average of roughly $49 million per year. (No state capital funds are assumed for 2009-2010.)

As shown in table B, the state general campus funding proposed in the Plan for the period 2010-2019 is roughly equal to the projected allocation to the Berkeley campus.

Health Science Funds

The method for allocating the projected health sciences bond funds to the campus is being developed. In the interim, for the purpose of this Plan, OP has reserved approximately one-sixth of the expected funds to address new health science initiatives. The Berkeley Plan includes a $50 million allocation to phase 1 of the Community Health Campus, or roughly 1/3 of this sixth share. This project would provide a consolidated home for the School of Public Health, now dispersed in 17 locations, and would also include the expansion space required to accommodate the enrollment growth proposed by the UC Advisory Council on Future Growth in the Health Professions.


20

Seismic Surge Expenses

As described above in ‘Goals & Priorities: Life Safety’, the pace of the seismic program depends not only on funding for the projects themselves, but also on funding for surge space.

The Berkeley campus does maintain a modest amount of surge space, roughly 60,000 gsf, but this is only a fraction of the need. Tolman Hall, for example, contains 247,000 gsf. Although the campus plans to do the Tolman project in two stages, it would require at least 120,000 gsf of surge space for the duration of the project.

The financial strategy for seismic surge space presented in this Plan includes several elements:

Existing Surge Reserve. The existing surge space reserve would be maintained at least through the timeframe of the Plan. Over half the space is in temporary metal buildings, constructed in 1999: these would be removed as soon after 2020 as possible, although they would be retained as long as a surge need exists. The balance, in Evans Hall, would be maintained until Evans Hall itself, which has a poor seismic rating, is replaced: this project is currently beyond the timeframe of the Plan.

Gateway Building. The Plan includes the new Gateway Building on a university owned site adjacent to campus. Space in this flexible office building would be used first primarily as surge space for seismic projects and then, once it is no longer required for surge, to rehouse campus units now in rental space.

The campus intends to deliver Gateway under a third-party partnership, in which a private sector developer would construct the building on a ground leased, university owned site adjacent to campus, and lease the building to the university for a 30 year term. Ownership would transfer to the university at the end of term.

In order to maximize the utilization of this prime downtown site, Gateway is proposed at up to 192,500 gsf, but the portion required for seismic surge would average roughly 120,000 gsf through the duration of the Plan. State capital funds are proposed to cover the rent for the portion of the space in Gateway used for seismic surge. Rent for the balance of the space in Gateway would be covered by campus funds. (State approval is required for this financial strategy.)

Lab Surge Space. The existing Calvin Lab is presently occupied by the Energy Biosciences Institute, which is planned to relocate to the new West Energy Facility in 2013. Once EBI relocates, Calvin Lab would be used as surge space for the 3 wet lab buildings requiring seismic corrections.

But Calvin Lab, at 33,000 gsf, is not itself large enough to meet the entire wet lab surge need of 65,000-70,000 gsf. The campus may provide the balance either with leased lab space or with modular lab structures: the parking lot adjacent to Calvin Lab is one possible location for these structures. State capital funds are proposed to cover the cost of the lab surge space, although the optimal solution remains to be determined.

Relocation Expenses. Surge expenses include not only the cost of the space itself, but also the cost of space alterations, network setups, and physical moves. The moves into the renovated or new replacement buildings, and the space alterations in those buildings, are assumed to be incorporated in the project budgets. The expenses described below include only those associated with the moves to the surge space, and the minimal space alterations required to accommodate each new surged tenant. State capital funds are proposed to cover these relocation expenses.

In Table 1, these surge expenses are shown as follows:

• The entire cost of the Gateway Building is shown as a capital lease, with the seismic surge portion of the yearly rental funded by the state, and the balance shown as a campus debt obligation.

• The temporary lab surge space is shown as a placeholder, pending further study to determine the optimal solution.

• The relocation expenses are incorporated into the project cost of each seismic project.


21

Table C. Capital Gift Targets ($000)

Capital Gift Target 600,000 % to Capital 20.0%Campaign Target 3,000,000

Committed to Pre-Plan Projects 257,800 Center for Biomedical & Health Sciences 104,800 Intercollegiate Athletics Programs & Facilities 153,000

Balance of Gift Target Available 342,200 Gift Share

Const Begins CCCI 5565Gift Funding in Ten Year Capital PlanStrategic Energy Projects 8,800 West Energy Research Facility 2009-2010 5,000 East Energy Research Facility 2010-2011 24,400 Campbell Hall Seismic Replacement 2010-2011 2,800 New Berkeley Art Museum 2010-2011 171,000 Moffitt Library Renovation 2011-2012 55,000 Community Health Campus #1 2011-2012 46,100 Chang-Lin Tien Center #2 2011-2012 50,000 Projects Within Campaign Timeframe 363,100 Old Art Museum Adaptive Renovation 2015-2016 83,600 Community Health Campus #2 2015-2016 84,100 Hearst Gym Adaptive Renov/Expansion 2017-2018 49,100 Campus Landscape Fund 25,000 Projects Beyond Campaign Timeframe 241,800

Gift Funds

The Campaign for Berkeley is now underway. The goal of the Campaign is to raise $3 billion to support Berkeley’s students, faculty, research and programs. The quiet phase of the campaign began in July 2005; the current public phase runs through June 2013. Approximately 43 percent, or $1.3 billion, of the goal had been raised as of fall 2008. Twenty percent of the funds, or $600 million, is planned to go toward building or improving campus facilities.37

A significant percentage of this $600 million is already committed to projects that started construction prior to 2009-2010, and are thus outside the timeframe of the 2009-2019 Capital Plan. The Plan has assumed gift funds would first be directed to these projects. As shown in table C, the balance of the capital gift target available for projects in the Plan is just over $342 million.

Analysis

Although the campaign target is a useful starting point in formulating the capital plan, gifts are not as flexible or fungible as other fund sources. They depend to a great extent on both the nature of the project and the interests of prospective donors. For example, there is no evident interest among donors in funding seismic renovations or basic infrastructure. As a general rule, the campus must rely on state and campus funds to meet those needs, except when, as in the case of the stadium and museum projects, seismic and system upgrades can be incorporated into a larger scope which also includes elements more compelling to donors.

Table C shows the capital investments in the 2009-2019 Capital Plan which are proposed to be financed partly or entirely with gift funds. The gifts required thru June 2013, $363 million, is slightly higher than the balance of the campaign target, $342 million. The balance of gifts required by the Plan after June 2013, $242 million, represents an average of $40 million in gifts required per year for the six years July 2013 through June 2019, in today’s dollars. This compares to the average of $75 million per year in capital gifts projected over the eight years of the campaign.

37 http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2008/09/19_campaign.shtml


22

CAMPUS FUNDS

Campus funds contribute to the capital investment program in two forms: as in-year expenditures, and as payments toward debt and other longterm obligations.

In-Year Outlays

The 2008-2009 campus budget presently includes a line item of $14.7 million per year for the ‘capital bank’: those funds are disbursed throughout the year for capital needs that arise during the year. For the most part, these are relatively modest, and often unanticipated, expenses ranging from emergency repairs to bid overages or other unexpected costs on projects already underway.

The 2009-2019 Capital Plan anticipates $5 million per year (CCCI 5565) in campus funds would be designated for capital renewal, to augment the average of $6 million per year (CCCI 5565) anticipated from state funds. In recent years, the campus has issued $5 million per year in debt to fund critical renewal projects: the Plan would convert this to in-year equity funding in 2009-2010. Table 1 shows how this and the balance of in-year capital funds are anticipated to be distributed in the Plan.

Longterm Obligations

The other role played by campus funds is to service capital debt and other longterm capital obligations.

Longterm Debt. There are 3 basic types of longterm campus debt:

• Debt serviced with general (E&G) revenues • Debt serviced with student fee revenues • Debt serviced with auxiliary revenues

In principle, auxiliary debt is supported entirely by the revenues of the auxiliary in question: housing, parking, athletics. General campus debt is supported by the nonauxiliary, or ‘education & general’ revenues of the campus (E&G).


23

Table D. Debt Service as % of Operating Expenditures ($000) 38

One of many metrics commonly used to assess an organization’s capacity to service longterm debt is the ratio of debt service to operating expenses. As shown in table D, this ratio at Berkeley in 2008-2009 was slightly lower than the 3.0% median for public institutions rated Aaa or Aa1 in Moody’s Public College and University Medians 2008.39 For Aaa privates, the median was 3.6%.

However, several large recent projects and acquisitions at Berkeley have been financed partly with longterm debt. As interim construction financing for those projects converts to longterm debt in the next few years, this ratio is projected to increase significantly.

38 The definition of ‘operating expenses’ used in this Plan is the one reflected in the

campus’ annual Statements of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Assets, but with scholarships deducted, to be consistent with Moody’s annual Public College and University Medians reports and other benchmarks.

39 Moody’s Investor Services, Public College and University Medians 2008, Jul 2008

Capital Leases. At least one project in the Plan, the Gateway Building, is under consideration as a private-sector partnership, in which the university would lease the site to the developer; the developer would construct the building; and then the developer would lease the space to the university for a 30-year term. At the end of the term, ownership of the building would transfer to the university. The capital lease is equivalent to long-term debt in its impact on the campus budget.

Analysis

Even without any of the new capital investments in the Plan, by 2018-2019 capital debt service per year – including Regents budget approvals thru September 2009 - is projected to grow by $66 million over its 2008-2009 level.

Table E presents a sensitivity analysis of the debt service to operations ratio under 3 revenue scenarios: 1% growth, 3% growth, and 5% growth. These scenarios are deliberately conservative: the high growth scenario is roughly equal to the 5.1% average growth in Berkeley campus operating expenditures over the five-year period 2002-2003 to 2007-2008. 40

Table E represents the additional debt service proposed by the Plan as conventional 30 year amortized debt. However, alternative debt structures, such as interest-only for the initial years of the debt term, could result in significantly lower ratios of debt service to operations in those initial years.

In table E, in the medium revenue growth scenario the ratio of debt service to operations would peak at 6.0% during the timeframe of the Plan. In the high revenue growth scenario – which is roughly equal to the average rate of growth over the past five years – it would peak at 5.3%.

Future editions of the Berkeley Capital Financial Plan will be informed by the debt affordability model now being developed by OP.

40 UC Berkeley, Statements of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Assets at June

30 2003 and 2002 and at June 30 2008 and 2007

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010

($000) ($000) ($000)

Operating ExpendituresIncrease in expenditures/yr 1,726,110 1,743,371 1,760,805 Cumulative increase over 2008-2009 17,434

Increase in expenditures/yr 1,726,110 1,777,893 1,831,230 Cumulative increase over 2008-2009 53,337

Increase in expenditures/yr 1,726,110 1,812,416 1,903,036 Cumulative increase over 2008-2009 90,621

Existing Capital DebtExisting+approved debt service/yr 38,400 46,600 68,000 Increase above 2008-2009 21,400

Debt Service as % of Operating ExpendituresLow revenue growth scenario 2.2% 2.7% 3.9%Medium revenue growth scenario 2.2% 2.6% 3.7%High revenue growth scenario 2.2% 2.6% 3.6%

3.0%

5.0%

1.0%


24

Table E. Debt Service as % of Operating Expenditures ($ 000)

The estimates of proposed new debt service are illustrative approximations only, based on current OP-prescribed rates and conventional 30 year fully amortized debt. Actual debt service would depend on the actual interest rates and debt structures for each new project: for example, interest-only payments in the initial years of the term.

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019

Operating ExpendituresIncrease in expenditures/yr 1,726,110 1,743,371 1,760,805 1,778,413 1,796,197 1,814,159 1,832,301 1,850,624 1,869,130 1,887,821 1,906,699 1,925,766 Cumulative increase over 2008-2009 17,434 35,042 52,826 70,788 88,929 107,252 125,759 144,450 163,328 182,395 Increase in expenditures/yr 1,726,110 1,777,893 1,831,230 1,886,167 1,942,752 2,001,035 2,061,066 2,122,898 2,186,585 2,252,182 2,319,748 2,389,340 Cumulative increase over 2008-2009 53,337 108,274 164,859 223,141 283,172 345,004 408,691 474,289 541,854 611,447 Increase in expenditures/yr 1,726,110 1,812,416 1,903,036 1,998,188 2,098,097 2,203,002 2,313,152 2,428,810 2,550,251 2,677,763 2,811,651 2,952,234 Cumulative increase over 2008-2009 90,621 185,773 285,682 390,587 500,737 616,395 737,835 865,348 999,236 1,139,818

Existing Capital Debt w/o Ten Year Plan* Existing + approved debt service/yr thru Sept 2009 46,600 68,000 64,000 81,000 110,000 113,000 114,000 114,000 112,000 111,000 113,000

Increase over 2008-2009 w/o proposed new debt 21,400 17,400 34,400 63,400 66,400 67,400 67,400 65,400 64,400 66,400 New Capital Debt in Ten Year Plan - 30 Year Amortized

Proposed additional debt service/yr 639 5,645 3,538 211 3,313 2,688 8,355 Debt term 30 Interest/yr 6%

Cumulative increase over 2008-2009 existing + approved 639 6,284 9,822 10,033 13,346 16,034 24,388 Capital Debt w/ Ten Year Plan

Total debt service/yr existing + approved + proposed 68,000 64,000 81,000 110,639 119,284 123,822 124,033 125,346 127,034 137,388 (Capital lease: net of State reimbursement for percentage of capital lease used for se - - - 1,800 3,500 3,500 3,500 4,400 4,400 4,400

Total debt service + net capital lease payments 68,000 64,000 81,000 112,439 122,784 127,322 127,533 129,746 131,434 141,788 Total increase over 2008-2009 21,400 17,400 34,400 65,839 76,184 80,722 80,933 83,146 84,834 95,188

Debt Service as % of Operating ExpendituresLow growth scenario 3.9% 3.6% 4.5% 6.2% 6.7% 6.9% 6.8% 6.9% 6.9% 7.4%Medium growth scenario 3.7% 3.4% 4.2% 5.6% 6.0% 6.0% 5.8% 5.8% 5.7% 5.9%High growth scenario 3.6% 3.2% 3.9% 5.1% 5.3% 5.2% 5.0% 4.8% 4.7% 4.8%

* (Debt service in existing + approved base includes Regents budget approvals thru Sept 09)

3.0%

5.0%

1.0%


25

C A P I T A L P R O G R A M 2 0 0 9 - 2 0 1 9

Table 1 presents a year-by-year breakdown of the capital investment program for the period 2009-2019. Project costs are presented in unescalated dollars at CCCI 5565 for years 2010-2011 through 2018-2019.

Tables 2, 4 and 5 show the distribution of capital resources by funding source, by use of space, and by type of project, respectively. Table 3 shows the distribution of external financing proposed in the Plan. while table 6 shows the program sorted by use of space in terms of new and renovated assignable square feet rather than dollars.

As presented in ‘Goals & Priorities’, the capital investment program supports the goals and objectives of the Strategic Academic Plan and the 2020 Long Range Development Plan.

However, it is also constrained by projections of future resources. Because these projections reflect current economic conditions and trends, they are not optimistic, and the program therefore does not include all of the capital initiatives now being explored by the campus.

The investment program in this 2009-2019 Capital Plan should therefore be viewed as only one of many possible scenarios, to be critiqued and refined as conditions evolve.

Future editions of the Berkeley Capital Financial Plan will be informed by the prioritization review outlined in ‘Capital Approval Process’, above.


26

Table 1. 2009-2019 Capital Program ($000) 1 of 3 Excludes projects expected to start construction prior to 2009-2010 Nonstate projects shown in anticipated year of initial Regents approval

Project 10 Y Plan

Seismic (CCCI 5565 )

Instruction & ResearchEnergy Research Facility: West Site C 40,000 - 143,800

New 112,800 gsf PWC 5,000 G - PWC 98,800 Lx -

Energy Research Facility: East Site C 30,000 - 54,400 New 38,000 gsf PWC 24,400 G -

Campbell Hall Replacement ● PW 6,400 C 65,200 - 87,400 Dem 63,700 gsf C 11,000 F - New 81,600 gsf E 2,800 G -

C 2,000 X - Community Health Campus #1 WC 50,000 HS - 100,800

New 160,000 gsf P 5,000 G C 41,100 G - C 4,700 Lx -

Chang-Lin Tien Center PWC 50,000 G - 50,000 New 43,500 gsf -

Tolman Hall Renovation ● PW 13,200 C 120,700 - 133,900 Exst 247,000 gsf -

2223 Fulton Vacation/Demo ● (Assume tenants rehoused in CHC #1 and Tien plus leased space) - 3,000 Exst 52,000 gsf C 3,000 X -

Community Health Campus #2 PWC 84,100 G - 88,200 New 140,000 gsf C 4,100 Lx -

Lewis Hall Renovation ● P 1,900 W 1,900 C 34,700 38,500 Exst 68,146 gsf -

Mulford Hall Renovation ● P 1,900 WC 50,800 52,700 Exst 93,500 gsf -

Dwinelle Annex Renovation ● WC 4,700 4,700 Exst 8,400 gsf -

Hearst Gym Renovation/Exp ● C 49,100 98,200 Exst 124,400 gsf PWC 49,100 G

Gateway Building (Capital lease - State to reimburse for percentage of lease cost associated with seismic surge) 2,900 5,800 5,800 20,500 60,500 New 192,500 gsf 1,800 Lc 3,500 Lc 3,500 Lc 16,700 Lc

Lab Surge Facility - TBDTBD -

Notes:No Mark = State General Campus ; HS = State Health Science; F = Federal; G = Gifts; X = Campus Equity; S = Student Fees; La = Auxiliary External Financing Lx = E&G External Financing; Lc = Capital Lease; N = Reserves

● Indicates the project includes correction of seismic deficiencies through renovation or replacement

2015-2019(CCCI 5320 ) (CCCI 5565 ) (CCCI 5565 ) (CCCI 5565 ) (CCCI 5565 )

2009-2010Prefunded(CCCI 5565 )

2010-2011 2012-2013 2013-20142011-2012 2014-2015(CCCI 5565 )


27


Project 10 Y Plan

Seismic (CCCI 5565 )

LibraryMoffitt Library Renovation PWC 55,000 G - 55,000

Exst 130,600 gsf - MuseumNew Berkeley Art Museum ● PWC 171,000 G - 191,000

New 139,000 gsf PWC 20,000 Lx - Old Art Museum Renovation ● PWC 83,600 G - 83,600

Exst 105,800 gsf - Student LifeKing Union Retrofit ● PWC 7,900 S - 7,900

Exst 118,600 gsf - Greek Theater Partial Retrofit ● PWC 4,000 Lx - 4,000

Exst 11,910 gsf - Eshleman Hall Partial Retrofit ● PWC 1,200 S - 1,200

Exst 46,200 gsf - 2111 Bancroft Partial Retrofit ● PWC 1,100 S - 2,200

Exst 47,600 gsf PWC 1,100 X - Lower Sproul Project ● - TBD

TBD - HousingAnna Head West Student Housing PWC 6,400 N - 69,900

New 424 beds PWC 63,500 La - Smyth Faculty Apartments PWC 5,300 N - 57,700

New 154 units PWC 52,400 La - Bowles Hall Renovation PWC 4,500 N - 41,700

Exst 230 beds PWC 37,200 La - Stern Hall Renovation PWC 2,100 N - 37,100

Exst 263 beds PWC 35,000 La - Kerr Campus Renovation #3 PWC 3,900 N - 29,000

Exst 196 beds PWC 25,100 La - Ellsworth Student Housing PWC 2,200 N 88,000

New 466 beds PWC 85,800 La



(CCCI 5565 )

Prefunded(CCCI 5565 )

2013-20142009-2010(CCCI 5565 )(CCCI 5565 ) (CCCI 5565 )

2010-2011(CCCI 5320 )

2011-2012 2014-2015 2015-2019(CCCI 5565 )

2012-2013


28


Project 10 Y PlanSeismic (CCCI 5565 )

AthleticsMemorial Stadium West ● - 321,000

Exst 413,200 gsf PWC 321,000 La - Infrastructure & In-YearCapital Renewal 7,200 7,400 5,500 6,400 - 30,000 106,500

5,000 X 5,000 X 5,000 X 5,000 X 5,000 X 5,000 X 20,000 XIntracampus Communications System 7,400 7,400

- Strategic Energy Projects 1,200 G 1,900 G 1,900 G 1,900 G 1,900 G - 24,900

4,500 Lx 2,400 Lx 2,400 Lx 2,400 Lx 2,400 Lx - 300 La 300 La 300 La 300 La 300 La - 100 N 100 N 100 N 100 N 100 N -

Other Campus Projects <$5M 15,000 X 15,000 X 15,000 X 15,000 X 12,000 X 15,000 X 60,000 X 147,000 -

Campus Landscape Fund 5,000 G 20,000 G 25,000 -

ParkingDowntown Parking Facility - TBD

TBD - SubtotalsState

General Campus 76,400 - 72,400 20,600 129,100 14,100 9,600 197,200 519,400 Health Science - - - 50,000 - - - - 50,000

NonState - - Gifts - 30,600 282,900 43,000 4,700 1,900 172,700 69,100 604,900 Federal - - 11,000 - - - - - 11,000 Campus Equity - 21,100 22,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 80,000 203,100 Auxiliary Reserves - 6,500 5,400 4,600 100 2,200 3,900 2,200 24,900 Student Fees - 10,200 - - - - - - 10,200 E&G Debt - 107,300 22,400 7,100 2,400 2,400 4,100 - 145,700 E&G Capital Lease (Net of State Contribution) - - - - 1,800 3,500 3,500 16,700 25,500 Auxiliary Debt - 384,800 52,700 37,500 300 35,300 25,100 85,800 621,500

Totals 2,216,200



238,900 451,000 76,400 560,500 468,800 182,800 158,400 79,400

2013-20142012-2013 2014-2015(CCCI 5320 )

Prefunded 2010-20112009-2010(CCCI 5565 )(CCCI 5565 ) (CCCI 5565 )

2015-2019(CCCI 5565 )(CCCI 5565 )(CCCI 5565 )

2011-2012


29

Table 2: Capital Program by Funding Source

Project costs for years 2010-2011 through 2018-2019 are presented in unescalated $ at CCCI 5565, to show the relationships among the categories in terms of real value.

10 Y Plan(CCCI 5565 )

Fund SourceState General 76,400 - 72,400 20,600 129,100 14,100 9,600 50,200 62,700 66,300 18,000 519,400 State Health - - - 50,000 - - - - - - - 50,000 Gifts - 30,600 282,900 43,000 4,700 1,900 172,700 9,900 9,900 44,300 5,000 604,900 Federal - - 11,000 - - - - - - - - 11,000 Campus Funds - 31,300 22,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 213,300 External Financing - 492,100 75,100 44,600 4,500 41,200 32,700 89,300 4,400 4,400 4,400 792,700 Aux Reserves - 6,500 5,400 4,600 100 2,200 3,900 2,200 - - - 24,900

76,400 560,500 468,800 182,800 158,400 79,400 238,900 171,600 97,000 135,000 47,400 2,216,200

Campus Funds includes Student Fees

(CCCI 5565 )

2018-2019(CCCI 5565 )

Prefunded 2009-2010 2010-2011(CCCI 5320 ) (CCCI 5565 )

2014-20152011-2012(CCCI 5565 ) (CCCI 5565 ) (CCCI 5565 )

2013-20142012-2013(CCCI 5565 )(CCCI 5565 )

2015-2016 2017-20182016-2017(CCCI 5565 )

State General23.4%

State Health2.3%

Gifts27.3%

Federal0.5%

Campus Funds9.6%

External Financing35.8%

Aux Reserves1.1%


30

Table 3: External Financing


E & G Debt18.4%

E & G Capital Lease

3.2%

Auxiliary: Housing37.9%

Auxiliary: Athletics

40.5%


External FinancingE & G Debt 107,300 22,400 7,100 2,400 2,400 4,100 - - - - 145,700 E & G Capital Lease (Net of State Contribution) - - - 1,800 3,500 3,500 3,500 4,400 4,400 4,400 25,500 Auxiliary: Housing 63,800 52,700 37,500 300 35,300 25,100 85,800 - - - 300,500 Auxiliary: Athletics 321,000 - - - - - - - - - 321,000

- 492,100 75,100 44,600 4,500 41,200 32,700 89,300 4,400 4,400 4,400 792,700

2017-20182015-2016(CCCI 5565 )(CCCI 5565 ) (CCCI 5565 )

Prefunded 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012(CCCI 5565 ) (CCCI 5565 )

2012-2013(CCCI 5565 )

2014-20152013-2014(CCCI 5320 ) (CCCI 5565 )

2016-2017(CCCI 5565 )(CCCI 5565 )

2018-2019


31

Table 4: Capital Program by Use of Space



FunctionInstruction & Research 76,400 128,200 133,200 109,000 128,200 14,200 101,300 52,600 66,000 97,700 9,300 916,100 I & R Support - - 246,000 - - - 83,600 - - - - 329,600 Student Life - 15,300 - - - - - - - - - 15,300 Infrastructure & In-Year - 26,100 31,900 32,100 30,200 28,100 25,000 31,000 31,000 37,300 38,100 310,800 Housing - 69,900 57,700 41,700 - 37,100 29,000 88,000 - - - 323,400 Athletics - 321,000 - - - - - - - - - 321,000

76,400 560,500 468,800 182,800 158,400 79,400 238,900 171,600 97,000 135,000 47,400 2,216,200

2012-2013 2013-20142011-2012 2015-2016(CCCI 5320 ) (CCCI 5565 ) (CCCI 5565 )

Prefunded 2009-2010 2010-2011(CCCI 5565 )

2016-2017(CCCI 5565 ) (CCCI 5565 ) (CCCI 5565 ) (CCCI 5565 )

2014-2015(CCCI 5565 ) (CCCI 5565 )

2018-20192017-2018

Instruction & Research

41.3%

I & R Support14.9%

Student Life0.7%

Infrastructure & In-Year

14.0%

Housing14.6%

Athletics14.5%


32

Table 5: Capital Program by Type of Project



Project TypeSeismic Replacement 6,400 - 269,200 - 2,800 3,000 - - - - - 281,400 Seismic Renovations - 336,300 - 13,200 120,700 1,900 87,400 43,300 56,700 88,400 - 747,900 Other New Facilities 70,000 198,100 112,700 95,800 4,700 9,300 97,500 97,300 9,300 9,300 9,300 713,300 Other Renovations - - 55,000 41,700 - 37,100 29,000 - - - - 162,800 Infrastructure & In-Year - 26,100 31,900 32,100 30,200 28,100 25,000 31,000 31,000 37,300 38,100 310,800

76,400 560,500 468,800 182,800 158,400 79,400 238,900 171,600 97,000 135,000 47,400 2,216,200

Prefunded 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012(CCCI 5565 )

2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015(CCCI 5320 ) (CCCI 5565 ) (CCCI 5565 ) (CCCI 5565 ) (CCCI 5565 ) (CCCI 5565 )

2018-2019(CCCI 5565 ) (CCCI 5565 ) (CCCI 5565 )

2017-20182015-2016 2016-2017

Seismic Replacement

12.7%

Seismic Renovations

33.7%Other New Facilities

32.2%

Other Renovations

7.3%


14.0%


33

Table 6: New and Renovated Assignable Square Feet, Beds, and Parking Spaces

FunctionInstruction & Research A 14 460,200 334,700 - - - I & R Support B 3 95,000 148,900 - - - Student Life 4 - 132,200 - - - Infrastructure & In-Year C - - - - - - Housing D 6 - - 1,044 689 - Athletics E 1 - 30,900 - - - Parking - - - - - -

Total 28 555,200 646,700 1,044 689 -

Rennovated ASF figures represent existing ASF - may change with renovation

A Not adjusted to reflect demolition of existing Campbell and 2223 Fulton

B I & R Support category includes museum and library projects

C Some projects within this category may include alterations to existing ASF, but not comprehensive building renovations

D New Smyth Apartment units counted as one bed each in this table

E ASF for Memorial Stadium reflects existing - project in design, new ASF not yet calculated

# Projects New ASF Renovated ASF New Beds Renovated Beds New Spaces


34


35

P R O J E C T D E T A I L S

The following sheets provide more detailed information on each of the projects in the 2009-2019 Capital Plan, although we expect to refine the information as the program, design, and budget of each project becomes better defined.

The investment program displayed in tables 1 through 6 includes three projects which are under study but not yet sufficiently defined to specify project details: the Lower Sproul Project, the Downtown Parking Facility, and the Lab Surge Facility.


36

I & R Campbell Hall Seismic Replacement

Approval Delegation Regents Seismic/Life Safety? Yes

Budget and Financial Plan Program ScopeState 53,300 ASF

General Campus $71,600,000 A 81,600 GSFHealth Science $0 65% ASF:GSF

NonState n/a Bed SpacesGifts $2,800,000 n/a Pkg SpacesFederal $11,000,000Campus Equity $2,000,000 Gift ScheduleAuxiliary Reserves $0 Gifts PledgedStudent Fees $0 Gifts to be Raised $2,800,000External Financing

E&G Debt $0 External FinancingE&G Capital Lease $0 Amount Financed

Auxiliary Debt $0 @ CCCI 5565 $0Budget @ CCCI 5565 $87,400,000 Escalated @ 5% year

Debt Service/Year $0Milestones Terms 30 y @ 6.00%Target Construction Start FY 2010-2011 Pledge Source n/aTarget Occupancy FY 2013-2014 Op/Ed Test n/a

Debt Service Coverage Ratio n/a

NotesA P and W phases prefunded, W nearly complete. C phase awaits inclusion in State budget.

Replace the existing 63,700 gsf Campbell Hall with a new physical sciences building to house the Departments of Physics and Astronomy. The existing building, completed

in 1959, has a 'poor' seismic rating, and requires not only life safety improvements but also comprehensive renewal of obsolete building systems. The basement level would

house low vibration physics labs. Levels ground thru five are designed for future flexibility and optimization of environmental controls, and include a mix of labs, faculty

offices, student workspaces, and administrative and interaction spaces for Astronomy and the astrophysics program of the Physics department. This project received design

and environmental approval from The Regents in March 2008.


37

I & R Community Health Campus - Phase 1

Approval Delegation Regents Seismic/Life Safety? Yes C


General Campus $0 160,000 GSFHealth Science $50,000,000 A 60% ASF:GSF

NonState n/a Bed SpacesGifts $46,100,000 n/a Pkg SpacesCampus Equity $0Auxiliary Reserves $0 Gift ScheduleStudent Fees $0 Gifts PledgedExternal Financing Gifts to be Raised $46,100,000

E&G Debt $4,700,000E&G Capital Lease $0 External Financing

Auxiliary Debt $0 Amount FinancedBudget @ CCCI 5565 $100,800,000 B @ CCCI 5565 $4,700,000

Escalated @ 5% year $4,900,000Milestones Debt Service/Year $356,000Target Construction Start FY 2011-2012 Terms 30 y @ 6.00%Target Occupancy FY 2013-2014 Pledge Source Op/Ed Funds

Op/Ed Test 64% D

Notes Debt Service Coverage Ratio

A If the Health Sciences bond measure does not occur, this project could also be financed as a capital lease.B Phase 1 budget includes prorata share of entire cost of demolition of existing DHS facility.C Would enable the relocation of Public Health units out of 2223 Fulton, a seismically poor building.D Calculation based on FY 2018-2019: year of highest ratio based on current existing + approved debt.

The Community Health Campus would bring several health disciplines together to catalyze new initiatives at the intersection of research, practice, and policy. The CHC is

planned as a 2-phase project on the university-owned former site of the State Department of Health Services, with an ultimate buildout of up to 300,000 gsf. CHC phase 1

would provide 160,000 gsf of space to house the instruction and research programs of the School of Public Health, including the expansion space required for the increase

in enrolment proposed by the UC Advisory Council on Future Growth in the Health Professions . Public Health faculty accommodated in phase 1 would be those engaged in office-

and drylab-based research, roughly 85% of the faculty. CHC phase 1 would also include the library, seminar and conference spaces, and student workspaces. Public Health

is presently dispersed in 17 locations, a signficant impediment to instruction and intellectual collaboration .


38

I & R Tolman Hall Seismic Renovation



General Campus $133,900,000 A,B 247,000 GSFHealth Science $0 60% ASF:GSF

NonState n/a Bed SpacesGifts $0 n/a Pkg SpacesCampus Equity $0Auxiliary Reserves $0 Gift ScheduleStudent Fees $0 Gifts PledgedExternal Financing Gifts to be Raised $0

E&G Debt $0E&G Capital Lease $0 External Financing

Auxiliary Debt $0 Amount FinancedBudget @ CCCI 5565 $133,900,000 @ CCCI 5565 $0

Escalated @ 5% yearMilestones Debt Service/Year $0Target Construction Start FY 2012-2013 Terms 30 y @ 6.00%Target Occupancy FY 2015-2016 Pledge Source n/a

Op/Ed Test n/aDebt Service Coverage Ratio n/a

NotesA Budget includes move and setup cost associated with relocation of tenants to surge space during construction.B Rent for surge space in Gateway Bldg to be reimbursed with state funds; project budget does not include rent payments.

Seismic improvement and systems renewal of the 247,000 gsf Tolman Hall. This existing building, completed in 1962, has a 'poor' seismic rating, and requires not only life

safety improvements but also comprehensive renewal of obsolete building systems. Tolman Hall houses the Department of Psychology and the School of Education, as well

as 13 classrooms, and due to its size and number of occupants represents the campus' next highest priority for seismic correction. Although the budget does not yet

include program improvements, such improvements would be explored during the program and design phase, along with potential funding sources. The project would be

phased to ensure the provision of adequate and suitable surge space for this very large building: one option for surge space for this and subsequent seismic projects is the

proposed Gateway building.


39

I & R Chang-Lin Tien Center - Phase 2

Approval Delegation Campus Seismic/Life Safety? Yes A


General Campus $0 43,500 GSFHealth Science $0 60% ASF:GSF






NotesA Would enable the relocation of IEAS out of 2223 Fulton, a seismically poor building.

Phase 1 of the Chang-Lin Tien Center, the Starr East Asian Library, was completed in 2007. Phase 2 would unite the various campus programs focused on Asia into a single

integrated center of language and culture. This 43,500 gsf project would provide office, seminar, and conference space for the Department of East Asian Languages and

Cultures and the Institute for East Asian Studies. EALC is presently housed in Dwinelle Hall, which accommodates 14 other departments, and is presently beyond capacity

with no space for further growth. IEAS is presently housed in 2223 Fulton, which has a poor seismic rating and is scheduled for demolition as soon as it can be vacated.


40

I & R 2223 Fulton Demolition

Approval Delegation Campus Seismic/Life Safety? Yes



NonState n/a Bed SpacesGifts $0 n/a Pkg SpacesCampus Equity $3,000,000Auxiliary Reserves $0 Gift ScheduleStudent Fees $0 Gifts PledgedExternal Financing Gifts to be Raised $0



Escalated @ 5% yearMilestones Debt Service/Year $0Target Construction Start FY 2013-2014 Terms 30 y @ 6.00%

Pledge Source n/aOp/Ed Test n/aDebt Service Coverage Ratio n/a

Notes

The seismically 'poor' building at 2223 Fulton is planned for demolition. Its remaining primary tenants, Intitute for East Asian Studies and Public Health, are planned to be

relocated to the Chang-Lin Tien Center and Community Health Campus Phase 1, respectively.


41

I & R Community Health Campus - Phase 2

Approval Delegation Regents Seismic/Life Safety? No



NonState n/a Bed SpacesGifts $84,100,000 A n/a Pkg SpacesCampus Equity $0Auxiliary Reserves $0 Gift ScheduleStudent Fees $0 Gifts PledgedExternal Financing Gifts to be Raised $84,100,000


Auxiliary Debt $0 Amount FinancedBudget @ CCCI 5565 $88,200,000 B @ CCCI 5565 $4,100,000

Escalated @ 5% year $5,000,000Milestones Debt Service/Year $363,000Target Construction Start FY 2015-2016 Terms 30 y @ 6.00%Target Occupancy FY 2017-2018 Pledge Source n/a

Op/Ed Test 65% C

Debt Service Coverage Ratio

NotesA This project could also be financed as a capital lease.B Phase 1 budget includes prorata share of entire cost of demolition of existing DHS facility.C Calculation based on FY 2018-2019: year of highest ratio based on current existing + approved debt.

The Community Health Campus would bring several health disciplines together to catalyze new initiatives at the intersection of research, practice, and policy. The CHC is

planned as a 2-phase project on the university-owned former site of the State Department of Health Services, with an ultimate buildout of up to 300,000 gsf. CHC phase 2

would accommodate a mix of health science-related programs in Neuroscience, Optometry, Bioengineering, and/or Psychology, selected to maximize synergy with each

other and with the Public Health programs housed in CHC phase 1.


42

I & R Lewis Hall Seismic Renovation









NotesA Budget includes move and setup cost associated with relocation of tenants to surge space during construction.B Cost of lab surge space beyond Calvin Lab to be reimbursed with state funds; project budget does not include this cost.

Seismic improvement and systems renewal of the 68,100 gsf Lewis Hall. This existing building, completed in 1948, has a 'poor' seismic rating, and requires not only life

safety improvements but also comprehensive renewal of obsolete building systems. Lewis Hall provides wet labs and other space for the College of Chemistry, as well as 2

classrooms. Although the budget does not yet include program improvements, such improvements would be explored during the program and design phase, along with

potential funding sources.


43

I & R Mulford Hall Seismic Renovation










Seismic improvement and systems renewal of the 93,500 gsf Mulford Hall. This existing building, completed in 1948, has a 'poor' seismic rating, and requires not only life

safety improvements but also comprehensive renewal of obsolete building systems. Mulford Hall provides space for the College of Natural Resources, as well as 4

classrooms. Although the budget does not yet include program improvements, such improvements would be explored during the program and design phase, along with

potential funding sources. One option for surge space for this and subsequent seismic projects is the proposed Gateway building.


44

I & R Dwinelle Annex Seismic Renovation










Seismic improvement and systems renewal of the 8,800 gsf Dwinelle Annex. This existing building, completed in 1920,as a 'poor' seismic rating, and requires not only life

safety improvements but also comprehensive renewal of obsolete building systems. Dwinelle Annex provides space for Theatre, Dance and Performance Studies. Although

the budget does not yet include program improvements, such improvements would be explored during the program and design phase, along with potential funding sources.


45

I & R Hearst Gym Seismic & Program Renovation & Expansion



General Campus $49,100,000 124,400 GSFHealth Science $0 67% ASF:GSF






Notes

Adaptive renovation and expansion of Hearst Gymnasium. This existing building, completed in 1927, is on the National Register of Historic Places. It has a 'poor' seismic

rating, and requires not only life safety improvements but also comprehensive renewal of obsolete building systems. Hearst Gym provides space for the academic

departments of Physical Education and Military Education, as well as work and storage space for the Hearst Museum of Anthropology. The project would entail not only

seismic and systems renewal, but would also transform this 80 year old facility into a true center of student life, including both active and quiet recreation as well as social

spaces, exhibits, performances, and student services. The project includes an addition to provide new archival work and storage space for the invaluable artifacts of the

Hearst Museum: at the main level, the addition would complete the never-finished north facade and provide a welcoming main entrance from the campus.


46

I & R Gateway Building



General Campus see notes A,B 192,500 GSFHealth Science $0 60% ASF:GSF


E&G Debt $0E&G Capital Lease $60,500,000 A External Financing

Auxiliary Debt $0 Base Rent/Yr Budget @ CCCI 5565 $60,500,000 @ CCCI 5565 $9,300,000 B,C

Pledge Source n/aMilestones Op/Ed Test n/aTarget Construction Start FY 2010-2011 Debt Service Coverage Ratio n/aTarget Occupancy FY 2012-2013

NotesA Total includes ONLY rent payments within the timeframe of the 2009-2019 Capital PlanB State capital funds proposed to cover the percentage of rent associated with seismic surge projectsC Capital leases are carried as the equivalent of debt obligations on the university balance sheet.

Actual rent payments would increase over time to accommodate operations cost escalation.

This project represents a new general purpose office building on a university-owned site in downtown Berkeley, adjacent to the central campus. The project would be

constructed by a private-sector developer and leased back to the university under a longterm capital lease: the building would transfer to the university at the end of the

lease term. The building would provide surge space for some seismic renovations in the Capital Financial Plan. Once the space is no longer required for surge, it would be

retenanted with campus research and administrative units now housed in rental space: the 'recaptured' rents would contribute to the lease payments. The project would

also include the renovation and reuse of the adjacent, and seismically poor, UC Garage.


47

I & R Support Moffitt Library Renovation

Approval Delegation Campus Seismic/Life Safety? No



NonState n/a Bed SpacesGifts $55,000,000 n/a Pkg SpacesCampus Equity $0Auxiliary Reserves $0 Gift ScheduleStudent Fees $0 Gifts Pledged $6,000,000External Financing Gifts to be Raised $49,000,000


Auxiliary Debt $0 Amount FinancedBudget @ CCCI 5565 $55,000,000 @ CCCI 5565 n/a

Escalated @ 5% yearMilestones Debt Service/Year n/aTarget Construction Start FY 2011-2012 Terms 30 y @ 6.00%Target Occupancy FY 2013-2014 Pledge Source n/a


Notes

The 130,600 gsf Moffitt Undergraduate Library, completed in 1970, is located at the center of campus at the intersection of the main east-west and north-south pedestrian

routes. However, today its spaces and systems are unable to support the dramatic changes in scholarship experienced over the past four decades. The proposed

renovation would transform Moffitt into a place far more conducive to group interaction as well as quiet individual study. The renovation would also upgrade the obsolete

building infrastructure to support 21st century methods for research and analysis; provide flexible state-of-the-art spaces for team-based projects and presentations; and

showcase student work.


48

I & R Support New Berkeley Art Museum




NonState n/a Bed SpacesGifts $171,000,000 n/a Pkg SpacesCampus Equity $0Auxiliary Reserves $0 Gift ScheduleStudent Fees $0 Gifts Pledged $53,700,000External Financing Gifts to be Raised $117,300,000


Auxiliary Debt $0 Amount FinancedBudget @ CCCI 5565 $191,000,000 @ CCCI 5565 $20,000,000

Escalated @ 5% year $20,000,000Milestones Debt Service/Year $1,452,978Target Construction Start FY 2010-2011 Terms 30 y @ 6.00%Target Occupancy FY 2013-2014 Pledge Source Op/Ed Funds

Op/Ed Test 64% A


NotesA Calculation based on FY 2018-2019: year of highest ratio based on current existing + approved debt.

The Berkeley Art Museum is presently housed in a 105,800 gsf building with a 'poor' seismic rating. Its Pacific Film Archive cinema, formerly also housed in this building, has

been relocated to a nearby temporary building. This project would construct a new home for the Museum and Film Archive on a site in downtown Berkeley, adjacent to

the west entrance to campus and within a block of the downtown BART station. It would not only provide a facility more conducive to the Museum's curatorial, research,

and public mission, but would also integrate the campus’s premier visual arts venue with the thriving downtown Berkeley arts district, and serve as a symbolic gateway to

campus. The existing Old Art Museum would undergo adaptive renovation to serve other academic needs.


49

I & R Support Old Art Museum Seismic & Program Renovation









Notes

Once the Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive are relocated to the proposed New Berkeley Art Museum, this existing 105,800 gsf building, completed in 1970

and with a 'poor' seismic rating, would be adaptively renovated to house other programs, yet to be determined. The project scope would include structural modifications

to improve the seismic rating from 'poor' to 'good', correction of access and other code upgrades, renewal of building systems, and program improvements.


50

Student Life King Union Seismic Retrofit




NonState n/a Bed SpacesGifts $0 n/a Pkg SpacesCampus Equity $0Auxiliary Reserves $0 Gift ScheduleStudent Fees $7,900,000 A Gifts PledgedExternal Financing Gifts to be Raised $0





NotesA Student life safety fees.

The proposed structural improvements to King Union, completed in 1961, would upgrade its seismic rating from 'poor' to 'good', and would also correct access and life

safety code deficiencies in the areas involved in structural improvements.


51

Student Life Greek Theater Partial Seismic Retrofit






Auxiliary Debt $0 Amount FinancedBudget @ CCCI 5565 $4,000,000 @ CCCI 5565 $4,000,000

Escalated @ 5% year $4,000,000Milestones Debt Service/Year $291,000Target Construction Start FY 2010-2011 Terms 30 y @ 6.00%Target Occupancy FY 2010-2011 Pledge Source n/a

Op/Ed Test 60% A


NotesA Calculation based on FY 2018-2019: year of highest ratio based on current existing + approved debt.

The historic Greek Theater has been identified as seismically 'very poor', a rating that indicates that extensive structural and nonstructural damage, potential structural

collapse, and/or falling hazards that would represent high life hazards are expected to occur in a seismic event. This project represents the lowest-cost upgrade option: it

would not in itself raise the seismic rating above 'poor', but would reduce the life-safety hazard to building users until funding is available to complete the additional

corrections required to achieve a 'good' rating. It would also include code-required fire/life safety and access upgrades.


52

Student Life Eshleman Hall Partial Seismic Retrofit




NonState n/a Bed SpacesGifts $0 n/a Pkg SpacesCampus Equity $0Auxiliary Reserves $0 Gift ScheduleStudent Fees $1,200,000 A Gifts PledgedExternal Financing Gifts to be Raised $0






Eshleman Hall, completed in 1965, is planned for longterm replacement as part of the renovation of Lower Sproul Plaza. The proposed structural improvements to

Eshleman would not in themselves raise its seismic rating above 'poor', but would reduce the life-safety hazard to building tenants until the building is removed and

replaced.


53

Student Life 2111 Bancroft Partial Seismic Retrofit




NonState n/a Bed SpacesGifts $0 n/a Pkg SpacesCampus Equity $1,100,000Auxiliary Reserves $0 Gift ScheduleStudent Fees $1,100,000 A Gifts PledgedExternal Financing Gifts to be Raised $0






2111 Bancroft, acquired in 1974, is not planned for longterm retention, although the specific future of the property has not yet been determined. The proposed structural

improvements to 2111 Bancroft would only raise the seismic rating of the building from 'very poor' to 'poor', but would reduce the life-safety hazard to building tenants

until the building is either sold or removed and replaced.


54

Housing Anna Head West Student Housing


Budget and Financial Plan Program ScopeState TBD ASF

General Campus $0 TBD GSFHealth Science $0 TBD ASF:GSF

NonState 424 Bed SpacesGifts $0 n/a Pkg SpacesCampus Equity $0Auxiliary Reserves $6,400,000 Gift ScheduleStudent Fees $0 Gifts PledgedExternal Financing Gifts to be Raised $0


Auxiliary Debt $63,500,000 Amount FinancedBudget @ CCCI 5565 $69,900,000 @ CCCI 5565 $63,500,000

Escalated @ 5% year $63,500,000Milestones Debt Service/Year $4,613,000Target Construction Start FY 2010-2011 Terms 30 y @ 6.00%Target Occupancy FY 2012-2013 Pledge Source Housing Revenues

Op/Ed Test n/aDebt Service Coverage Ratio 1.17 A

NotesA First complete year of amortization.

Debt service coverage figures in this Plan include debt service and operations for both existing and planned future projects.

One objective of the 2020 LRDP is to increase single student beds to equal 100% of entering freshmen plus 50% of entering transfers and 50% of entering graduates: this

number is projected at 7463 by 2020. The 424 new bed spaces in this project, plus the 466 bed spaces in the Ellsworth project, would increase the number of single

student bed spaces from 6499 to 7389, thus effectively meeting the 2020 LRDP objectives for entering students. The 2020 LRDP also has the objective of providing

additional single student bed spaces to equal 50% of sophomores: the campus will continue to expand the student housing inventory to meet this objective as resources

permit. The project would be constructed on the site of a campus surface parking lot, and would include spaces for study, computing, and fitness; apartments for a resident

director and resident faculty member; and offices for academic advising.


55

Housing Smyth Faculty Apartments




NonState 154 UnitsGifts $0 n/a Pkg SpacesCampus Equity $0Auxiliary Reserves $5,300,000 Gift ScheduleStudent Fees $0 Gifts PledgedExternal Financing Gifts to be Raised $0







With the completion of its third and final phase, student family housing will be consolidated at University Village in Albany. The 74 1940s vintage units at the Smyth

Fernwald site will be vacated and demolished, and the site redeveloped with 154 faculty apartments. The price of housing in the Berkeley market is a severe impediment to

the campus' ability to recruit and retain new faculty. The 2020 LRDP includes the objective to construct 100 net new faculty units by 2019-2020: the Smyth Apartments

would exceed this objective by 50%. Although the community will primarily target faculty, we may also include some mix of visting scholars, postdocs, graduate students,

and student families as eligible tenants for the site. The site will enhance student-faculty interaction in an indusive and comfortable environment.


56

Housing











Bowles Residence Hall Renovation

The rehabilitation of Bowles Hall, completed in 1927, involves the complete renovation and code upgrade of the historic building, including comprehensive renewal of

building systems and restoration of historic facades and windows. The renovation will demolish all of the interior hollow clay partition walls other than in historic ground

floor rooms. New walls will be located to provide two person residence rooms, with lounges and study on each floor, and a central laundry and academic center. With

the new layout, Bowles Hall will be able to accommodate approximately 30 more students. The project will also create a new Resident Director apartment and a visiting

Faculty Apartment within the building. A new ramped path, entrance, and elevator will provide universal access to the building.


57

Housing











The rehabilitation of Stern Hall, completed in 1942, includes comprehensive renewal of building systems and finishes. While the interior layouts will remain largely intact

with minor changes, common restrooms will be completely remodeled, and a new elevator will be installed to provide universal access to all six floors.

Stern Residence Hall Renovation


58

Housing











One objective of the 2020 LRDP is to increase single student beds to equal 100% of entering freshmen plus 50% of entering transfers and 50% of entering graduates: this

number is projected at up to 7400 by 2020. The 466 new bed spaces in this project, plus the 424 bed spaces in the Anna Head project, would increase the number of

single student bed spaces from 6499 to 7389, thus effectively meeting the 2020 LRDP objectives for entering students. The 2020 LRDP also has the objective of providing

additional single student bed spaces to equal 50% of sophomores: the campus will continue to expand the student housing inventory to meet this objective as resources

permit. The project would be constructed on the site of a campus surface parking lot roofed with a tennis deck, and would include spaces for study, computing, and fitness;

apartments for a resident director and resident faculty member; and offices for academic advising.

Ellsworth Student Housing


59

Athletics







Escalated @ 5% year $321,000,000Milestones Pledge Source Athletics Gross RevenuesTarget Construction Start FY 2010-2011 Taxable Debt $21,000,000Target Occupancy FY 2012-2013 Terms: 30 y @ 7.25%

Tax-exempt Debt $300,000,000Terms: 30 y @ 6.00%

Debt Service Y1-Y20 (Int Only) $19,520,000Debt Service Y21-Y30 (Amort) $43,780,000Debt Service Coverage Ratio 2.29 / 1.27

Notes

This is the second project of a 3-project program to improve and seismically upgrade the Stadium athletic facilities. The first project, the Student Athlete High

Performance Center, now under construction, provides a new adjacent facility serving 12 men's and women's teams, and replaces training spaces now housed within the

Stadium. This project would renovate and seismically improve the 82 year old Stadium, including replacement of the west grandstand and provision of new game day

amenities including restrooms, concessions, and concourse space. The new grandstand would be designed to provide a life-safe structure for the seating bowl and the

spaces below it, while preserving and bracing the existing architecturally significant exterior wall. A future third project would consist of improvements to the east side of

the stadium, including a lower east concourse with restrooms and concessions, and improved emergency vehicle access.

Memorial Stadium Seismic Renovation & West Program Improvements


60



Budget and Financial Plan Program ScopeState n/a ASF

General Campus $56,500,000 n/a GSFHealth Science $0 n/a ASF:GSF

NonState n/a Bed SpacesGifts $0 n/a Pkg SpacesCampus Equity $50,000,000Auxiliary Reserves $0 Gift ScheduleStudent Fees $0 Gifts PledgedExternal Financing Gifts to be Raised $0



Escalated @ 5% yearMilestones Debt Service/Year $0Target Construction Start FY Multiyear Terms 30 y @ 6.00%Target Occupancy FY Multiyear Pledge Source n/a


Notes

Capital Renewal

The capital renewal program combines state and campus funds to address the campus' highest capital renewal priorities. In general, individual projects within the program

would be under $5 million. Projects include selective renewal or replacement of the campus utility infrastructure, and selective renewal or replacement of building systems,

equipment, and roofs, walls, and windows.


61

Infrastructure & In-Year Other Campus Projects < $ 5 Million



General Campus $0 n/a GSFHealth Science $0 n/a ASF:GSF

NonState n/a Bed SpacesGifts $0 Pkg SpacesCampus Equity $147,000,000Auxiliary Reserves $0 Gift ScheduleStudent Fees $0 Gifts PledgedExternal Financing Gifts to be Raised $0





Notes

The Plan includes a fund of up to $15 million per year to cover small and unanticipated capital projects, space alterations, emergency repairs, preliminary studies for future

projects, and other in-year expenditures. This fund also includes the ongoing campus programs to improve univeral access on campus, and continue the remediation of

Richmond Field Station. The actual amount of funding per year would depend on available resources.


62




General Campus $7,400,000 n/a GSFHealth Science $0 n/a ASF:GSF






Notes

Intracampus Communications System - Steps 7 & 8

Many campus buildings are connected to the campus information network through ad hoc pathways such as old utility conduits. Many of these conduits are at capacity, and

many others are damaged or hazardous: these conditions limit or preclude further upgrades in capability. The construction of new interbuilding 'backbone' to replace these

ad hoc pathways, and provide capacity for future growth, began in 1985. To date, 5 of the 8 elements have been completed, and work is underway on element 6. However,

elements 7 and 8 and some key linkages required to interconnect the finished elements remain to be done.


63




General Campus n/a GSFHealth Science $0 n/a ASF:GSF

NonState n/a Bed SpacesGifts $8,800,000 n/a Pkg SpacesCampus EquityAuxiliary Reserves $500,000 Gift ScheduleStudent Fees $0 Gifts PledgedExternal Financing Gifts to be Raised $8,800,000



Escalated @ 5% year $16,300,000Milestones Debt Service/Year $1,184,000 A

Target Construction Start FY Multiyear Terms 30 y @ 6.00%Target Occupancy FY Multiyear

NotesA At end of year 5

The campus has committed to completing approximately 200 energy efficiency projects through the Strategic Energy Plan, including energy efficiency measures - lighting,

space conditioning, commissioning - in new and renovated buildings, refrigerator and CRT monitor replacements, and power management systems for networked

computers. These 200 projects will cost roughly $25 million, although the campus will receive roughly $9 million in incentives from PG&E, and will yield cost savings of at

least $3 million per year and a 23,000 ton reduction in emissions.

Strategic Energy Projects


64




General Campus n/a GSFHealth Science $0 n/a ASF:GSF

NonState n/a Bed SpacesGifts $25,000,000 n/a Pkg SpacesCampus EquityAuxiliary Reserves $0 Gift ScheduleStudent Fees $0 Gifts PledgedExternal Financing Gifts to be Raised $25,000,000





Notes

The campus Landscape Master Plan and the 2020 LRDP identify 29 priority investments in the campus landscape: 25 place-specific initiatives plus the four urban edges of

the campus. These initiatives should serve as the framework for a special, ongoing gift fund focused on the campus landscape. So as not to compete with the current

campuswide campaign, this special fund is proposed to begin in 2014-2015, at the midpoint of the 2009-2019 Capital Plan, with a goal of raising $5 million per year in 2009

dollars.

Campus Landscape Fund


65


66

u c berkeley 2009-2019 capital financial plan

Documents